On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > Henning Follmann <hfollm...@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > > > unreliable messaging system" > > > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using > > > it?? :-( > > > > > > Lisi > > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides > > you with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > > > If an email is designated as spam, it will be *silently* dropped. It > took mail admins a long time to realise that if a message was spam, the > last thing they should do with it is to 'return' it to the apparent > 'sender' as part of a bounce message. >
You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the sending server is blacklisted. If blacklisted any attempt to deliver any mail will be denied and the sender will receive a proper 5XX error message. If the initial test passes though and the mail is accepted the mail has been "reliably" delivered. If any additional filter decide that this is spam then -again- we are dealing with an technical solution to a social problem. Still e-mail is fairly reliable. The issue as always is the overcommunication inflation which pretty much created the current situation. Finetuning the system to avoid fals positives while minimizing spam is an art. My current biggest pet peeve is that people are so distracted that they don't even read an email longer than 2 sentences (or 160 characters for our twitter friends) -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com
