Can this thread die, please?
On 31-mei-04, at 7:20, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Yes, spam filtering can be quite effective.
Not using spam filtering ... I don't like the chances of false
positives or negatives.
[...]
My various layers of filters averaged 521 spam/day for the last 40
days.
And how many false positives? Or don't you get to see these:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<vjs(_at_)calcite(_dot_)rhyolite(_dot_)com>
(reason: 553 5.3.0 go away)
Hanging up on people is pretty rude. You should at least give a reason.
I thought you were repeating the too familiar whine that it would be
Wrong and Evil to be forced to choose between paying for Full internet
Connectivity and having port 25 blocked.
As I've said before: the fact that you apps guys can't get your act
together isn't enough reason for me to do more work at layers 3 and 4.
Stupid network, smart hosts, remember?
And again: please let this thread die. Even if blocking port 25 were a
good idea it's no use as it needs to be done for 99%+ of all hosts
connected to the internet to have any effect, and that's not going to
happen any time soon. (Lots of people still don't do any anti-spoofing
filtering even though that doesn't generate support calls and has been
best practice for years.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf