On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:13:27 -0800 "Gary Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is all I'm saying but it seems that many others feel otherwise. I > think picking a fight with people who are required to support MS for > their customers will hurt applications such as SA in the future. If my > outgoing client mail is flagged as spam on the client pop server then I > would be forced to shut it off. There are too many benefits of running > SA but if the clients cannot reliably communicate with their business > peers then it becomes a worthless tool. Agreed. > I'm just hoping that the maintainers to SA will think about this in 3.00 > as a potential rule that that will keep SA with a low FP rate. Isn't > that the goal? Yes; as has been said before SA is a spam filter, not an RFC-compliance test suite. Still, I'm interested in seeing how my incoming mail rates as far as RFC-compliance goes. I'd like something to do for email what Tidy does for web pages (Google hasn't turned up anything useful.) It's difficult to alert vendors about spec violations (or conversely, to design spec-compliant systems) without a decent compliance checker. The plugin architecture of SA 3.x should make it easy to add such a tool as an option for people who care about such things. -- Bob
