On 31-mei-04, at 7:20, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Yes, spam filtering can be quite effective.
Not using spam filtering ... I don't like the chances of false positives or negatives.
[...]
My various layers of filters averaged 521 spam/day for the last 40 days.
And how many false positives? Or don't you get to see these:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(reason: 553 5.3.0 go away)Hanging up on people is pretty rude. You should at least give a reason.
I thought you were repeating the too familiar whine that it would be Wrong and Evil to be forced to choose between paying for Full internet Connectivity and having port 25 blocked.
As I've said before: the fact that you apps guys can't get your act together isn't enough reason for me to do more work at layers 3 and 4. Stupid network, smart hosts, remember?
And again: please let this thread die. Even if blocking port 25 were a good idea it's no use as it needs to be done for 99%+ of all hosts connected to the internet to have any effect, and that's not going to happen any time soon. (Lots of people still don't do any anti-spoofing filtering even though that doesn't generate support calls and has been best practice for years.)
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf