Re: [exim] spam acl condition syntax

--On 13 October 2006 22:06:21 +0800 W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:

>
>>> Anyway - user choice, so no different than someone's junk filter or
>>> manual decision to delete unread (or read).
>>
>>
>> Yes, but why give people extra rope to hang themselves? Better to reject
>> what you're not going to deliver - if possible.
>>
>
> Dunno where you get an 'extra rope' analogy...

If you give your user extra tools to discard false positives, you do them
potential harm. It's better to reject (not bounce) a false positive, so
that the sender knows their message has not been delivered.

I've never thought it sensible to blackhole email, and am increasingly
convinced that labelling spam is dangerous because human's end up
blackholing labelled spam. We know that bouncing spam is bad. That just
leaves delivery and rejection as sensible options.

> Who's ox is being gored? A spammer?
>
> We look on spam as 'fraudulent conversion' (of our storage, bandwidth,
> and staff time - to their ends).
>
> Thieves they are also of fractional portions of human life. Billions of
> such. Sounds like multiple counts of 'assault with intent to maim' to me.



--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex