wayne writes: > The definition of "unacceptably high false positive rate" can *only* > be defined by the receiver of the email. It's difficult to do that if the intended receiver of the e-mail never sees the e-mails that are rejected. The false-positive rate will then appear to be perpetually zero to the receiver, even if every incoming e-mail is being discarded. > In the case of spam filtering, it is important to remember that domain > names are cheap. There are companies out there that will host your > domain name and deal with your email for you. You can access email > for your domain either via pop/imap, webmail, or forwarding. Some domain owners run their own e-mail servers. POP/IMAP, webmail, forwarding, and the like do not offer the same degree of control as an independent e-mail server, and they don't create as professional an impression. > Exactly. And that goes for spam filters, firewalls, restricted > mailing lists, and whatever. If the sender doesn't have any rights to > contact the receiver (which usually means a contract), then what they > want is irrelevant. Explain postal mail, then. Explain telephones. > Letting people without standing have a say is a huge problem. What is "standing"? > You cannot let people in Iran or the US decided whether a website in > Germany can publish information that they don't like. Should people in Iran or the US decide whether recipients in Germany should be allowed to receive e-mail from China? _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf