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).
I doubt there is anyone here in camp 1; they can just turn off their
SMTP servers and go home, their goal achieved. (There may be some who
_say_ they're in camp 1, but if they haven't just shut off their
mailers, they apparently don't actually mean it.)
As Daniel pointed out, there's a third group, those who believe that
spam should be SMTP-level rejected, never silently dropped, thereby
avoiding losing ham. I hold myself to belong to this group.
There's a fourth group, too, those who believe spam should be countered
to the point at which the chance of the defenses mistaking a ham for a
spam is less than the chance of a human, deleting spam, making the same
mistake. I hold myself to belong to this group as well.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML
mouse(_at_)rodents(_dot_)montreal(_dot_)qc(_dot_)ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg