Re: [exim] Gmail's new 'suspicious sender' flag

On 6 Jul 2011, at 15:36, Bill Hayles wrote:

> Hi, Martin
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:01:30 +0100 in message number <201107061501.31448@???>, received here on 06/07/2011 16:28:59, Martin Nicholas <subscriptions.private@???> said:
>
>>
>> I'd say that SPAM filtering causes more lost mail: silently discarded, placed
>> in the SPAM folder never to be seen again, than trouble with SPF. The
>> difference being the results of an SPF check failure is returned to you and is
>> thus visible, false positives 'magically' disappear - no problem at all there
>> then ;-)
>>
> Which is why my server does NO spam filtering. It's up to the users what to
> do about spam; for all I know they may be interested in those offers from
> the kind people in the penis enlargement lobby. That's how my users like it.
>

The trouble with that is that the ideal situation is that spammers simply can't deliver their email. If you check at the MTA, then you can arrange this (false positives and false negatives notwithstanding).

If you leave it to the end user, it's too late to reject the email. As far as the spammer is concerned, the email is delivered.

--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148