On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 16:16 -0700, Les wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 11:06 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:17 -0700, Les wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:35 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:29 -0700, Les wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > But is 99.99% delivery sufficient? I receive more than 150 emails per > > > > > day (ones that I am interested in), and every few days I need to receive > > > > > certain emails about customer relations and ongoing projects. 99.99 > > > > > percent means I would miss one every 66 days. If the one that I miss > > > > > cost me a contract, it might not matter whether I received the rest or > > > > > not. Currently I have to parse through the junk mail locally and > > > > > remotely about once a week. the ISP junk folder often has more than > > > > > 1200 emails in it. THe local one about 30. This adds about 1/2 day of > > > > > overhead every week to recapture what should have come through. > > > > > Personally I think the world needs to eliminate spam, or at least make > > > > > every effort to seriously reduce it. > > > > ---- > > > > but your example completely misses the point. > > > > > > > > the 'Junk' directory is a result of some type of agent parsing accepted > > > > e-mail, scoring it and redirecting it based on a score. > > > > > > > > The point of greylisting is always about (or virtually always...depends > > > > upon various implementations anyway) sender/recipient/smtp server > > > > 'tuples' and 'Temporary Failure' /SMTP result codes 450 and whether the > > > > sender attempts redelivery. > > > > > > > > http://www.greylisting.org/ > > > > > > > > I would suggest that rather than prove the argument about the problems > > > > with greylisting, you have proven the opposite because if you can lop > > > > approximately 70% of that junk mail off the top via greylisting, you > > > > wouldn't have to look through so much 'junk' to find the false positives > > > > that inevitably occur with any type of spam scoring system. > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > I cannot argue the value of greylisting. But efficiency is in the eye > > > of the beholder. My time is limited. My work valuable, and my customer > > > correspondence is dictated by my customer, not my email policy. I am at > > > the mercy of the ISP here, and the customer. Yet I am the one who > > > suffers loss, not the ISP, not the customer who will find someone to do > > > his work. Yet you as the web person thinks this is effective. I cannot > > > speak to school systems, only professional uses. Time is money and lost > > > opportunity is even more valuable, resulting in loss that cannot be > > > measured, yet ultimately may determine the success or failure of my > > > business. > > > > > > I would like to take this thought "out of the box". The methods > > > currently in place, grey listing, parsing for key words, and other > > > simplistic means, while effective at reducing traffic are not really the > > > desired solution by users, who would like 100% success in getting their > > > desired email. And while I cannot spout statistics about loss, I know > > > it happens from personal experience. The question at hand is how to > > > avoid even more loss. It is a quality issue, and today the quality > > > standard is not 99.99%, it is 99.9999% (six nines or six sigma) in most > > > industries. To say that 99.99 is good enough is the path for GM and > > > Ford, not Toyota and Nissan. Think of it that way. So how do we > > > improve by two decades of quality in this "war" against spam? > > ---- > > greylisting is just one of a lot of tools available to the mail server > > administrator - all of them are calibrated to minimize the junk mail > > delivered to the end users and of course minimizing delivery failures > > and false positive scoring by various mechanisms. > > > > End users of course are the ones ultimately affected and you seemingly > > want to open an end user discussion about a server level > > technology...please don't as it won't provide clarity to anyone. > > > > If you are losing e-mails, evaluate the filtering system that you use at > > end user level and discuss the methodologies employed by your mail > > provider with them. > > > This is the same sort of nonsense that the carmakers spouted about > quality in the 70's. See where it got them. > This is an end user product. Clarity is the way the user sees it, not > the way the provider sees it. > > I know there is no sense arguing this, I have dealt with engineers and > quality issues for years. The only way that attention comes is when > someone provides the user with higher quality and the engineer is > provided with a pink slip when his job goes away. > > It is coming. Wait for it... wait for it.... ---- aside from your resurrecting a discussion that is 2 weeks old and completely cold... aside from your continued insistence to inject user level concerns on a topic that was completely about SMTP/MTA administration... aside from the fact that you have now tried to render a technical discussion on strategic mail handling to a metaphor that has no relevance... I'd say you have contributed nothing to the discourse at all. I will repeat...you are in control over your own e-mail. If you don't like how your e-mail provider handles your e-mail, you can change providers. My comments on this topic were directly solely to a system administrator handling a mail account that was job jobbed. How did this concern you? I still have no idea. Craig -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
