"Derrick 'dman' Hudson" said:
> | BTW my position on this, FWIW, is to take the old IETF position: "be > | conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive". > Doesn't that kind of imply accepting all the spam and whatever other > junk is thrown at you? Not *that* liberal ;) It's meant purely in technical terms -- ie. slight non-standards-compliance is to be tolerated in incoming data. > It seems that, as far as mail goes, the trend is reversing. More and > more sites are being more restrictive in what they receive in attempts > to reduce the spam. In fact, that is SA's goal :-). nope -- SpamAssassin should use *specific* signatures as spam-signs, where statistics from the spam/nonspam corpora back this up; general enforcing of RFCs shouldn't be a goal for it, IMO. --j. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
