Matthew van Eerde wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher wrote:
>> John Scully wrote:
>>> ...
>>> End result is that each user's message is handles based on their own
>>> settings for threshold and disposition, without the additional
>>> overhead of stream_by_recipient.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>> John, that is a very interesting way to do it, it solves the issue
>> with each user getting their own settings, but the error reporting is
>> a little odd since people sending email marked as spam will not get
>> notified that their message was not delivered.
>>
>> Have you noticed that to be a problem or do you send a bounce message
>> to those senders?
>
> In principle, if all the recipients agree that the message is spam,
> an action_bounce() might even be appropriate.
>
> John, do you keep agreement/disagreement statistics? In particular...
> What percentage of the time is there only a single recipient?
> In the multi-recipient case, what percentage of the time do the users
> agree?
To continue along this line of thought...
Suppose a particular message is addressed to ten users. Nine of the users
agree that it is spam. The tenth user disagrees.
Would it be a defensible position to reject the email anyway, and tell the
tenth user "sorry, you were outvoted... you can tell the person to send email
to you directly, rather than to you and nine other people"?
--
Matthew.van.Eerde (at) hbinc.com 805.964.4554 x902
Hispanic Business Inc./HireDiversity.com Software Engineer
perl -e"map{y/a-z/l-za-k/;print}shift" "Jjhi pcdiwtg Ptga wprztg,"
_______________________________________________
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
