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.)
I disagree some seem to agree with RTBL's and that is a camp 1 initiative
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.
See my response to Daniel
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.
Well lets call this 1a, You are saying drop all spam that reasonably *looks*
like spam because the user may confuse it as spam as well and drop it
anyway.
Shouldn't that grey area spam be passed on to the user for final
determination (i.e. camp 2). how do you know whether or not an end user
reads all his spam to make sure he doesnt miss anything important. I do.
For me all obvious spam gets dropped. but I cannot afford to drop an email
from a customer just because that customer says "hi there" in the subject.
With source validation (DK,SPF etc) I would not need to worry about scanning
as many spams as I currently have to, as this would be done at the SMTP
level.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg