At 03:04 PM 3/9/2005 -0600, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The reliability of detecting spam should not be an issue for the mail
> handling system. If the recipient thinks it is spam, it should be treated
> as spam.
this discussion has ceased to be about the email-arch document.
if it continues, please do so under a different subject, such as the one i
have used here.
I was trying to move the discussion away from "what is spam" ( Irrelevant
question, in my opinion ) back to what to do with "Spam Bounces", assuming
the subjective judgement has already been made by the user.
the architecture document is not going to be adding spam constructs, for
the reasons russ (and lots of others) have cited. it is a social issue.
What should we call this group of messages that may need to be handled
differently by the mail system than any other group shown in Fig. 5? If
you are saying this group should *not* be handled differently than DSNs,
then you are taking one position on a legitimate question, but not the only
reasonable position.
I think I said this before, but I'm not suggesting any changes in the
figures. Current practice is to treat Spam Bounces as DSNs, so the figure
is an accurate statement of current reality. My only suggestion, and this
is a small issue not worth an argument, was that the text list this
separate category of message, maybe as a particular type of DSN. That
would facilitate discussion, without taking a position on the question of
how this category should be handled.
Sorry for the distraction. I'm OK with dropping the topic if you think it
is not worth discussion.
-- Dave
************************************************************* *
* David MacQuigg, PhD * email: dmq'at'gci-net.com * *
* IC Design Engineer * phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* * 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. * Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************* *