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. And I've already pointed out that whilst it may not be a false positive, if it causes too many problems the test is too problematic and will be removed. What do I do in a situation where a user wants to receive all mail from a problematic ISP whereas all my other 29999 users don't ? Ideally I setup a block that applies for 29999 users and not for 1, if I can't (possibly due to time restraints), the 1 user is disappointed. On a separate point, my job (as a mail administrator ... I do other stuff as well) is to provide an Internet mail service. By definition a 'mail server' with no rDNS isn't sending Internet mail ... it's just random noise that happens to look like valid mail. > If you ask your > users, ``should I block email you want to receive because > it came from a host which didn't have a reverse-DNS > name?'', what would they say? "What's DNS ?" -- Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer University of Portsmouth: Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security If you play the Windows CD backwards you hear a satanic message. But it gets worse... If you play it forwards it installs Windows.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
