On Monday 10 March 2003 12:23 pm, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > > It also says: > > ``and it may cause some of your correspondents to just give up without > confirming that they are human, effectively causing false positives.'' > > Those who have used TMDA for a period of time know this is a > misconception, but even if it wasn't; I'm more comfortable with this > than a classifier which accidentally trashes a message it "thinks" is > spam. At least with TMDA, the sender has the choice whether or not to > let his message be delivered to you. With a classifier, he will assume > it has been delivered when it has not been, creating a communications > rift.
An amusing twist on this happened when I was snooping about on the spamcop mail list. I asked why all this frothing at the mouth over how much spam folks were getting when it was relatively easy to keep spam out with the approach used by TMDA. I actually had one guy get enraged, saying he wouldn't "jump thru hoops" just to send someone email. There are people out there who would rather blacklist the innocent along with the guilty than use something simple and effective. Even though several folks there said they'd found it easy to just click on the reply button, but this guy wouldn't budge. I guess he didn't like getting "plonked" either. ;-) -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ========================================================================== Robin Lynn Frank - Director of Operations - Paradigm-Omega, LLC Copyright and PGP/GPG info in mail or message headers. Email acceptance policy at http://paradigm-omega.com/email_policy.html ========================================================================== _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
