On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 19:34 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > > There are two topics: > - SPAM detection and tagging > - SPAM blocking > > > If you check at the MTA, then you > > can arrange this (false positives and false negatives > > notwithstanding). > > If you _check_ at MTA level, you can help the user to make the right > decision, with a clever scoring method. > > Then after your check, if you block at MTA level, I think it's bad.
If the mail isn't going to be read, it should be rejected. That's the only way that *genuine* senders are going to know that their mail isn't received, in the case of false positives. False positives *do* happen. To design a system that makes them *silent* failures is just wrong. You *have* to reject at SMTP time, if you want the system to still be considered reliable. > > If you leave it to the end user, it's too late to reject the email. > > If the user uses some filtering tool at MUA level _and_ the scoring is > good quality, the final user wont see any SPAM. > > > As far as the spammer is concerned, the email is delivered. > > I dont agree. s/spammer/sender/. And I don't see how there is any rational scope for disagreement. -- dwmw2 -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
