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

Chris Lightfoot wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 04:33:41PM +0100, Mike Meredith wrote:
>
>>Sometime around Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:45:28 +0100, it may be that Chris
>>Lightfoot wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>From the user's perspective yes. Not from my perspective.
>
>
> remind me, to whom is the mail addressed?
>

That is a cop-out.

No 'national' snail-mail postal service, nor private courier will, or would
allow themselves to be forced to - carry hazardous, offensive - or merely
'non-compliant' packages, properly 'addressed' or not.

They are *required* to reject such, and the recipients generally expect them to
do so.

We need to do more educating about the value-add of insisting on compliance, AND
furthering the understanding that receiving messages is not a "right" - it is a
privilege - on 'paid for' by the cooperation of many entities *other than* the
recipient.

In other words, our 'price of a postage stamp' is primarily adherence to
reasonable rules and good manners.

Bill