On 11/02/2010 17:08, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: >> Let me explain this in simple terms. >> >> Normal behaviour: >> >> Spam filtering causes a 5xx rejection. You get an NDR. You either >> contact the user some other way or not at all. > Spam filtering rejects valid non-spam because it mis-identified it as > "spam".
Yes. It's called a "false positive". >> Behaviour on my system: >> >> Spam filtering causes a 5xx rejection. You get an NDR. You either >> contact the user some other way or not at all. But ... the recipient can > Spam filtering rejects valid non-spam because it mis-identified it as > "spam". Now *I* have to do something to work around *Your* buggy/screwed > spamcheck. No different to a normal situation where the features I've described aren't in place. > You just have to hope that I´m really, really that interested to my mail > through. If it's an answer per PM to e.g. typical ML mails (like this > here), you would loose. No different to a normal situation where the features I've described aren't in place. >> still access the email if it's something they were expecting, *and* if >> the sender still wants to contact the recipient they now have an *extra* >> option to make their life easier - they can click a URL and fill in a >> captcha. >> >> So ... my system provides 2 extra little features which makes some >> senders and some recipients lives more easy. > No, you are pushing effort from your side out to others. If you want to > do something for the (valid) sender, fix the FP rate by changing > whatever it needs so that my on-spam mail gets through. Ridiculous claim. In a normal situation the effort relies on the sender to get their mail through after a false positive occurs, or it wont get through at all. With the 2 features I described, the sender is provided with an extra simple option to get the mail through, and the recipient has also been provided with an option to get the mail through. >> Neither sender nor recipient would benefit from me removing those >> features from my system. > Of course anyone can do as they think it´s best. But that doesn´t imply > that other think the same. I want you to describe a scenario where the sender or recipient are actually worse off because of the particular two features I've described. You've failed to even attempt that so far. I know this system works well because I've been using it for a long time. -- Mike Cardwell : UK based IT Consultant, Perl developer, Linux admin Cardwell IT Ltd. : UK Company - http://cardwellit.com/ #06920226 Technical Blog : Tech Blog - https://secure.grepular.com/ Spamalyser : Spam Tool - http://spamalyser.com/
