On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:45:28PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot said: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:41:45PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote: > > because they have an incompetent mail administrator is *not* a false > > positive. It may well be decided that such a test causes too many > > any case where your spam filter blocks a mail that a user > wanted to receive is a false positive. If you ask your > users, ``should I block email you want to receive because > it came from a host which didn't have a reverse-DNS > name?'', what would they say?
There are "false positives" for just about every test you can possibly do. Fortunately whitelisting is a valid and viable solution to resolve problems with rnds (as is fixing the dang dns!) My users are estatic that the plethora of tests I employ (which also includes rdns testing) has reduced spam to near zero (with the exception of image spam where I don't have a viable solution - yet.) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
