On Jan 12 2005, Seth Breidbart wrote:
Laird Breyer <laird(_at_)lbreyer(_dot_)com> wrote:
For example, software spam filtering methods (as a counterexample)
don't require special treatment of mailing lists.
Depends on the mailing list. You certainly wouldn't want to block
spam from the list that abuse@<provider> feeds.
How does that require special treatment? The filter mechanism
functions in exactly the same way whether the mail was sent to abuse@
or any other address, namely it filters what it considers spam.
If you are saying that you don't trust a filter to handle abuse@,
that's perfectly valid, but I can't see how this requires special
behaviour by the filtering technology itself?
By contrast, consider the ISACS spam filtering mechanism: it functions
by turning off a sub-address once it collects enough spam. But this
mechanism must depend on the nature of the address to prevent network
side effects.
Looking at it another way, you are of course free to *not* use a
software filter for abuse@, as you are free to *not* use ISACS for
mailing lists. But if you do, then the software filter mechanism can
be independent of the nature of the address, while the ISACS system
mustn't.
--
Laird Breyer.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg