Re: [exim] DynaStop - It works for me.

Chris Lightfoot wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 04:06:14PM +0100, Renaud Allard wrote:
>>
>> Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>> --On 3 November 2006 16:38:19 -0600 Mar Matthias Darin <BDarin@???>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>> Chris Lightfoot writes:
>>>>> no! you need to ask the recipient of the mail whether they
>>>>> wanted to receive it. That is the only way you can tell
>>>>> whether it was spam or not -- users don't typically care
>>>>> about idiotic conditions which ISPs try to apply to them
>>>>> or to other people (and rightly so).
>>>> If the system was set up properly to begin with, the only results you
>>>> should have to evaulate is what your end-user has already determined as
>>>> spam. Any message that is suspicious should always be tagged with a warn
>>>> first.
>>> Except that the holy grail of spam filtering is to save the "recipient"
>>> from being troubled by the spam.
>>>
>> And further, if the spam goes into the recipient mailbox, then the
>> recipient receives the spam. So there is no point bothering running a
>> spam filter at all as all spams go where spammers want them to go.
>
> how do you allow the recipient to discover when mail they
> wanted has been blocked?

Those who wish to see blocked mails can receive a weekly report of all
blocked mails to their addresses with the 5xx code corresponding to the
rejection.

The sender will always (with a "normal" SMTP server) get a meaningful
error message if their mail has been improperly blocked. All mails are
blocked in the SMTP transaction by exim ACLs, so the mail server from
the sender will make the error message itself. If the sender's
mailserver doesn't produce a bounce to its own user in case of
misclassification, then it's buggy and the sender should fix _his_
problem. If the sender has problems and doesn't understand why the mail
has been blocked, he generally phones to the recipient or at least try
to get in touch with him, and we can work to investigate the problem
together.