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. -- ## 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/
