On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:30:08 -0300 Christian Grunfeld <christian.grunf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, if I have to do *that*, I might as well not do any filtering > > at all. The whole purpose of anti-spam software is to shield me > > from spam. > Not 100% correct. Now I always check spam folder, dont you? I do have a quarantine. However, some of my spam doesn't even go into the quarantine. It just gets outright rejected without my seeing it. We do have thousands of end-users on our hosted system, and I can tell you this: About 90% of them *never* check their quarantine. If you're not a technical person, it's not a priority. > Do you advise your people not to check spam folders? Are you 100% sure > that machines can sort 100% efectively what is spam and what is not? I'm confident enough in our system's abilities to trust it to auto-reject a good percentage of my spam. Let me see... I have 1316 rejected messages in my recent history. 831 were auto-rejected. So more than 63%. We auto-reject with a 5xx SMTP failure code, so in the unlikely event of a FP, the sender will know about it. [...] > > Which sender? The envelope sender? The From: header sender? The > > Reply-To: sender? Or the Sender: sender? > well the From: header is what users see and trust. They do not know > about any other sender information A user who replies to a message with a Reply-To: header won't reply to the From: address. So users will need education and this is a non-starter. Regards, David.
