On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, at 12:49, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 8/31/23 8:02 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > 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
On 8/31/2023 7:23 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Now - there is a fact known to my system that's not known to yours (my
signed-in identity, which isn't br...@fastmailteam.com, and may not
appear at all other than an opaque header that other systems can't
parse). So that's a fair call, there's
On 8/31/23 8:02 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
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
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, at 11:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Bron,
>
> On 01/09/2023 02:02, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > Fact: recipient spam filter has more information than sender spam filter
>
> I've no axe to grind here, but wondered - is there e.g. a
> peer-reviewed publication that
On 8/31/2023 6:02 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Fact: recipient spam filter has more information than sender spam filter
The key bit, I think, is that more has happened, by the time of
receiving. Namely more copies sent through bots, etc.
Anyhow, the limitations at the sending side is why I am
Hi Bron,
On 01/09/2023 02:02, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Fact: recipient spam filter has more information than sender spam filter
I've no axe to grind here, but wondered - is there e.g. a
peer-reviewed publication that conclusively demonstrates
that?
Not saying that that's necessary, but I
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
