procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: whitelisting bad?

1997-09-29 20:13:55
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

=== Nothing above this line is part of the message. ===

dattier(_at_)wwa(_dot_)com (David W. Tamkin) wrote:
:                             matching a whitelist is an acceptable test for
:non-spam, but failure to match a whitelist is NOT a test for spam, much less
:proof of spam.

I use spamgard(tm), a whitelist mechanism.  It doesn't judge
_anything_ as spam.  Stuff that doesn't match the whitelist is simply
returned, including all the text and the original Subject: line, with
a message along the lines of "We know that what you sent me isn't
spam, so be a pal and resend it with xxxxxx in the Subject: line, ok?"

Signatures Follow. (tm)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNDBoeu7FqQNEGv6lAQG23AP/Vz9hn/cDxsMt22Ky8uaBpjDB1s3X1Mx7
aKmzIpKq51y/UXu5ADQK6Dol+ZMoTX1TTdw1Ul11wDN+DVo9zcAdc8SuNdHu9L55
J5LkPc6giwUt/YZ8R5ZlofIncgM3g7dB21FuU69kO9b7K/RYpyyT0VklnxI57D0d
sz1lP8WExWk=
=UYR3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- It is now safe to turn off your computer.
Bill Evans/Box 4829/Irvine, California 92616/(714)551-2766  _   /| ACK!
Email-To: wje(_at_)acm(_dot_)org  -- PGP encrypted mail preferred. --  \`o_O' /
   Finger wje(_at_)netcom(_dot_)com for public key.   Key #: 441AFEA5   =( )=
PGPprint: FB D0 1C 1D EF DC 26 BA  B3 9E 84 0B 40 D6 59 9C     U

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>