Chris Lightfoot wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:33:41PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote: > >>Sometime around Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:45:28 +0100, it may be that Chris >>Lightfoot wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>From the user's perspective yes. Not from my perspective. > > > remind me, to whom is the mail addressed? >
That is a cop-out. No 'national' snail-mail postal service, nor private courier will, or would allow themselves to be forced to - carry hazardous, offensive - or merely 'non-compliant' packages, properly 'addressed' or not. They are *required* to reject such, and the recipients generally expect them to do so. We need to do more educating about the value-add of insisting on compliance, AND furthering the understanding that receiving messages is not a "right" - it is a privilege - on 'paid for' by the cooperation of many entities *other than* the recipient. In other words, our 'price of a postage stamp' is primarily adherence to reasonable rules and good manners. Bill -- ## 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/
