Sometime around Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:39:34 +0100, it may be that Chris Lightfoot wrote: > The point here is *false* positives, and whether the
Or what I term 'unintented blocks' ... a term I've been using since before spam was a large problem. (I recall I used it in reference to accidentally blocking coloured book mail forwarded from a VAX onto a Unix box because the address format was 'invalid'). > decision about whether something should be treated as spam > should be up to the addressee, or up to some MTA > administrator exercising a technical prejudice. Different organisations have different levels at which unintended blocks are acceptable. An ISP may prefer a level of zero (where the user is paying for a service); another ISP who claims to block most spam may have a level somewhat higher. Where the email address is provided primarily for work related purposes and email is read during work time, the organisation may decide that a higher level of unintended blocks is acceptable. Letting users deal with spam has a high cost to an organisation (a back of the envelope calculation several years ago indicated I was saving £500,000 a year with anti-spam measures ... and I was probably underestimating by quite a way). Sometimes I get it right, and sometimes I get it wrong. But as I've been a Postmaster for 13 years and haven't been fired yet, I'm obviously not totally off the wall. -- Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer University of Portsmouth: Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security If you play the Windows CD backwards you hear a satanic message. But it gets worse... If you play it forwards it installs Windows.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ## 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/
