"Chris" <asrg(_at_)rebel(_dot_)com(_dot_)au> wrote:
From what I have seen over the months there is two camps within this group
1/ Those that believe Spam should be stopped at any cost
2/ Those that believe Spam should be countered but not at the expense of
losing possibly important messages
I am quite solidly in the second group (am I alone).
There are a few others with you.
There are a few in group 1.
Most of us are somewhere around 1.5. The simple reasoning: anything
that blocks no real email isn't going to block most spam. Therefore,
the user's mailbox will be full of spam. The user, paging through a
mailbox containing mostly spam, will accidentally delete some fraction
of real messages because they look too spammy. Therefore, it's better
for the filter to block a (smaller) percentage of real email and a lot
more spam, so that more real email actually ends up in the user's
brain (the true destination).
Given the choice between a message of mine being accidentally deleted
because the Subject header wasn't instantly screaming "I'm not spam"
and a message being rejected by an overly zealous filter, I'd
instantly choose the second because that way I _know_ there was a
problem.
Seth
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg