Re: [exim] SPAM Filtering - Losing the war!

On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:45:28PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot said:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:41:45PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote:
> > because they have an incompetent mail administrator is *not* a false
> > positive. It may well be decided that such a test causes too many
>
> any case where your spam filter blocks a mail that a user
> wanted to receive is a false positive. If you ask your
> users, ``should I block email you want to receive because
> it came from a host which didn't have a reverse-DNS
> name?'', what would they say?

There are "false positives" for just about every test you can possibly
do. Fortunately whitelisting is a valid and viable solution to
resolve problems with rnds (as is fixing the dang dns!) My users are estatic
that the plethora of tests I employ (which also includes rdns testing)
has reduced spam to near zero (with the exception of image spam where I
don't have a viable solution - yet.)