On Jan 18, 2008 12:35 PM, Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John L wrote: > >> In both cases, it leads to the receiver throwing away potentially > >> useful mail so the inept sysadmin gets pretty much what they deserve. > >> So why even worry about it at all? > > > > Because my goal is not to punish inept administrators, my goal is to > > deliver mail. Inept admins usually have other users who send actual > > mail to my users. > > > > Seems to me that you've said that if your goal is to deliver your users' > > mail, you dare not use SSP. > > If you're that concerned, you shouldn't be using any sort of reputation > and/or filtering since the chance of false positive is > 0. But of > course you do, so you obviously accept the possibility of inept > sysadmins doing themselves harm. Why badly configured SSP is any > different is beyond me. Frankly, I'd be a lot more worried about > badly administered RBL's and their ilk since they aren't accountable > to anybody but themselves. > > Mike
Are we seriously saying that we need to be concerned because of inept sysadmins? I would hate to see the training wheels welded on. Funny thing about inept sysadmins is that when all of their email starts to get thrown away, they either fix it or get replaced. Please let's not try to water this down so much that it becomes useless (again). Regards, Damon _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
