On Monday 16 Feb 2015 at 20:16, ttgh wrote:
> >> i saw last week a mail to our previous front-office which left
> >> the company in 2007 and i know the sender in person - it was not spam,
> >> he just replied to a years old message for whatever reason
>
> Thank you, that's an excellent point. In your example, however, I would
> point-out that your front-office person was someone tasked with
> communicating with outside contacts. Also, that their email was still
> being monitored.
I wonder what makes you believe that all email to your ex-employee accounts
qualifies as "spam".
Of course, that also begs the question of what you are defining as spam.
In general I am in agreement with most of the opinions which have been
expressed in this thread - that automatically using email sent to previously
valid but now defunct addresses as examples of spam is a bad idea. I also
agree that trying to do this without Bayes is ridiculous.
However I am getting the impression that you may have a different definition
of "spam" from some of the people providing answers to your question, and I
therefore think it would be useful to give as precise a definition as you can
of what email, exactly, you are trying to block.
Note that "blocking email to the now-unused addresses" would not be a helpful
definition, because this would be a simple filter at the receiving MTA
(indeed, why is your MTA still accepting to no-longer-valid addresses?),
whereas you appear to be wanting to use the emails sent to those addresses to
block something or other which is being sent to your still-valid addresses.
Therefore I ask myself "what is there in common between the emails you get to
the no-longer-valid addresses (which you could just throw away immediately if
you wanted to) and the emails you get to the currently-valid addresses (and
you appear to be trying to filter, based on something to do with the first
set)?"
I think the discussions back and forth so far have possibly suffered from
different sides having different ideas about what the objective is here.
Regards,
Antony.
--
Ramdisk is not an installation procedure.
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
