On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, at 12:38, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 8/29/23 3:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote: > > Any attempt by senders to filter outbound emails based solely on > > content is going to have a lot of false negatives and positives, > > wherever you decide to draw the line. > > I find the idea of using different, probably less stringent, filtering > on outbound than on inbound to be hypocritical. > > I find it tantamount to someone saying they only accept the most > pristine message while sending less pristine, and sometimes really > tarnished, email. > > Sure, there are some differences, e.g. lack of user preferences. > > Why the asymmetry? > > Why not apply the same filtering for outbound messages as applied to > inbound messages?
The classic case was that spam about V*gra was very common, but blocking that word in every anti-spam filter would create something that was really not fit for purpose for Pfizer to use for their email system. The sender and recipient really make a difference about what is spam - and as the sender you don't know who the end recipient is, because there are plenty of recipients. Fact: recipient spam filter has more information than sender spam filter Result: recipient spam filter can be more restrictive without causing excess damage. There's no hypocrisy in recognising the asymmetry, and designing with that in mind. Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
