-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
der Mouse wrote:
As Steve Atkins mentioned later in the thread, there's efficacy and
accuracy, two different aspects. I don't think there's anybody who
would dispute efficacy - rejecting at the source is clearly more
efficient.
That last word makes it appear you are confusing efficacy
("effectiveness") with efficiency ("efficientness").
Obviously, I blindly followed that misuse, to whit:
- -------------------------------
As Steve Atkins mentioned later in the thread, there's efficacy and
accuracy, two different aspects. I don't think there's anybody who would
dispute efficacy - rejecting at the source is clearly more efficient.
Efficacy has nothing to do with the success/failure of DNSBLs in a
general sense. Nor is rejecting at source a necessary consequence of
DNSBLs. We use DNSBLs, do rejections, but still get to quarantine the
whole email.
- -----------------------------
What I intended to say is that the DNSBL's efficiency (if that) isn't
relevant to success/failure _unless_ it impairs its useability. And as
such, that's a per-instance issue, not generic to the technique.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows 2000)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRDCSE53FmCyJjHfhAQJblgQA1CUQ8zDR3bOrkrBNK+jtOI5YSPYYgXWS
yeuVuHDh+Oc+poX9Mi4ijEGNXe4VEKCg5dY7UfJ1AuETGtJPrH0p/riIRLoMXcIZ
WEAzcZb+qidZYV586guhnRPtJgwkSF+RvmQp7oS1A2eTBHeLYn05lu082aMsRomh
wKhJKU3h9kU=
=yzxg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg