"Chris" <asrg(_at_)rebel(_dot_)com(_dot_)au> wrote:
Can you please explain why you're arguing that I believe high-volume
to be a near-perfect indicator of spam? I just can't understand how
you come to that decision.
Where in any of my mailings did I say this? "near perfect indicator" I never
at any stage said any such thing, or even came close to it.
Sorry, you did. You (paraphrased) said "in YOUR mta, it would see a
high volume of messages, and discard them as spam." Any rational
person would conclude that that statement was meant to describe my
position, and was meant to describe an MTA which used volume as the
sole (i.e. perfect) indicator, for messages being spam.
Can you explain why when I say "imperfect, but useful as part of a
system", you re-phrase it as "perfect, and usable only by itself"?
Your prejudice against using mail volume is so high that it is
preventing you from understanding my messages.
Do not attempt to twist my words into some sort of personal attack.
Oh, I'm clear it's not personal. You're careful to not make it
personal. But it's still annoying when I respond to what you've
written, and your response is to re-define what you've said to mean
something else, and then attack my response as not addressing that new
topic.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg