--On 7 June 2010 17:37:14 +0200 "J.D. Falk"
<jdfalk-lists(_at_)cybernothing(_dot_)org>
wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:
But I've seen several posts to this list suggesting life is better if
such messages simply never reach the subscribers' inbox. To be honest,
I don't recall the motivation for that position.
There've been a couple of studies where users were discovered to be going
into their spam folder, and falling for bank phishing messages there.
At Sussex, we made the decision a few years back that we either deliver
mail to the INBOX, or reject it at SMTP time.
A spam folder, for many users, is equivalent to a blackhole. Rejecting at
SMTP time, in theory, allows the sender of a false positive to choose
another contact method.
--
J.D. Falk <jdfalk(_at_)returnpath(_dot_)net>
Return Path Inc
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html