Vincent Lefevre writes:
> On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
>> On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> . . .
>> > 2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
>> > the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
>>
>> Agreed in p
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote:
On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
. . .
2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
Agreed in part. I see returning
Bill Cole wrote:
Not exactly. There are 2 distinct domain lists internal to SA that exist
to reduce false positives.
1. The URIDNSBL 'skip' list of domains which are ignored in body URIs.
These are known to not *per se* have any correlation to the ham/spam
classification decision.
IIRC the
On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 11:39 +1000, Noel Butler wrote: On 14/08/2022
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a
suitable
On 14/08/2022 22:37, Martin Gregorie wrote:
WTF, that has been a terrible idea since the 90s, given most spam is
spoofed, the end result of this will be y
