Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 3 November 2006 16:38:19 -0600 Mar Matthias Darin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. A spam filter that only adds a tag like [SPAM_SUSPECT] to the subject of the mails is useless, and worse it delays mails a bit and waste resources. It can even cause mail loss as most users will just create a rule to delete all mails containing the tag, and no one (sender or recipient) is warned that a mail failed to be delivered.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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/
