On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Keith Moore wrote: > Tony Finch wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > And because "abuse" is subjective (one recipient's spam is another > > > recipient's useful ad), you end up both legitimizing some amount of > > > abuse and marginalizing useful and valid behavior. > > > > I don't see any clear signs of the convergence to mediocrity that you > > are concerned about, > > Well, to me the amount of mail being discarded due to false indications from > blacklists is a clear sign of mediocrity.
I'd just say that that's a sign of a poorly implemented policy :-) The problem is that spam filtering is AI-complete and therefore cannot be implemented perfectly. This is why I'm trying to encourage people to avoid thinking in terms of the details of particular kinds of bad email. Looking back at your first sentence above I notice that you have mis-identified the abuse: it is not the fact that the message is an advertisement, it is the fact that it has been sent to someone who didn't want it. To solve the problem you must identify the accountable entities and punish them for using a badly-managed distribution list. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR GOOD. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
