--On Sunday, January 06, 2008 08:26:02 -0500 Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Andrew Macpherson, on 1/6/2008 5:16 AM, said the following: | >> someone is willing to do the work... | > Not a sifficient reason. | | By itself, you would be correct, it isn't... but that it is just one of | the main ones. | | > This is about SPAM not other messaging issues. | | By that argument we shouldn't be doing AV testing with ASSP either? | What about file/attachment blocking based on file-type/extension? To use your own phrase from this thread "Don't be an ass, Charles" both of these are symptoms of UBE, probably bot-originated | > 500k lines of source are complex enough. | | If you are a dev, then I suggest you take it up directly with the other | dev(s). Otherwise, this kind of comment is irrelevant coming from a user. I am entitled to make that comment WRT this code, ok? Please do not dive off into attacking the messenger to discredit the message (ad-hominem attacks) it usually reveals lack of substance in the underlying counter argument. | > Please kill stone dead this proposal. | | Since the main dev (Fritz) wants it, I think its too late for that - | thank goodness... I'm thinking of the hours and hours - probably days, | in total - I've wasted trying to convince brain-dead Outlook zombies to | take 5 seconds and change a setting in their address book so they'd stop | sending these things to my users. Sometimes I can convince them, others, | I have to show my brain-dead users time and time again how to decode them. A fait accompli encompassing a major change of direction should not be accepted **however desirable** the outcome --- and I would argue that it is not; in this case it is a major loss of focus, and likely to overload moderately busy systems in terms of extra message buffering, for *NO* anti-spam benefit. There may well be benefit to Fritz and some others, and code familliarity might make it easy to do, but as it is not anti-spam functionality it does not belong here --- if we want to add something (and I'm not suggesting this is an either/or situation, so don't go there) Domainkey tagging and validation is far more relevent now that Ebay + Paypal are joining yahoo, hotmail and other members of that club - the momentum is building behind it eg: http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5378#c4 | Luckily, over the last two years, these have slowed down dramatically - | but I'm quite certain it will come around again, and I'd love to be able | to simply not even know when it happens... :) You see? user education does work eventually. | > It is not appropriate | | What level would be appropriate? MTA? MUA? Originating MUA., or submission MTA, where it can be converted from MS-proprietary formats to standards based transferrable objects, | It is a tool. Use it - or don't. No one says you have to use all of the | options or modules. -- Andrew Macpherson, OA5.com Ltd. Registered No.3952726 VAT: GB 750 7688 04 The Red Lion #5. Much Hadham. Herts SG10 6DD. GB Phone +44 1279 843147 GSM +44 78999 61797 Fax +44 7092 052800 http://www.oa5.com/ OA5 is a member of ISPA-UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Assp-test mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-test
