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

Chris Lightfoot wrote:

> The point here is *false* positives, and whether the
> decision about whether something should be treated as spam
> should be up to the addressee, or up to some MTA
> administrator exercising a technical prejudice.

We are not discussing 'minor infractions, here.

Nothing to do with 'prejudice', technical or otherwise.

And no - for the sort of violations involved the addressee has *zero* say [1].

No more right than someone would have to say 'it's OK to permit [saltwater |
vinegar | sewage] in the public water mains'.

>
> Argument by analogy is usually futile, but in your terms
> this would be like the postman discarding, say, letters
> where the postmark wasn't completely legible or where he
> didn't like the way the letterhead was formatted. Actual
> postal authorities (in reasonable countries at least)
> prohibit that sort of interference.
>

Nonsense! Refusing to accept...

- a parcel containing live animals. Or unrefrigerated dead ones

- hazardous chemicals, flammables, etc.

- NO postage

- NO, or known-forged, sender information.

- cross-border shipments without proper customs information

Try any of these with your local FedEx or Post Office and see how far you get.

Bill


[1] We *have* had to remind those who pay the fees that our own ToS can get us
disconnected from the upstream b/w if we knowingly convey malicious content.

The upstreams, in turn, are beholden (eventually) to national governments in a
similar manner. TANSTAAFL.