On Friday 07 January 2005 06:01, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You cannot justify the bad consequences your actions just by saying > that they are the only way to get the good goals you desire.
The problem with spam filtering is that it's always a matter of trade-offs. If there is too much spam then when deleting all the spam you will accidentally delete some non-spam. Aiming for zero false-positives is as useless as aiming for zero spam getting through the defences when it comes to practical use of email. It's just a matter of what trade-offs are made. If spamcop was as bad as people claim then I'm sure that throughout this discussion people would be CCing me on their messages to the list and then flaming me on the list when my server rejected their email due to the Spamcop DNSBL. I conclude that the people who are trying to find problems with Spamcop aren't having much success. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
