On Yesterday, quoth Rodolfo J. Paiz: =>At 12:56 5/4/2003 +1000, you wrote: => =>>On Sun, 4 May 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: =>> =>To sum up: => => 1. Your point is that your measures work well in reducing spam. I =>agree, and your customers agree. => => 2. My point is that no amount of spam reduction is worth the =>possibility of missing that single $1,000,000 email. => =>This second point leads me to conclude that, IN MY OPINION, your measures =>are too drastic and not worth implementing. Too much cost and too little =>benefit. My customers agree. => =>I know you don't agree. Fine. I'm just trying to show you that yes, two =>different points of view _CAN_ exist on this issue. You are not "right" nor =>is it possible to be "right", and I am not telling you that you are "wrong" =>in any way either. We just think differently, and (surprise!) that's OK. I'd just like to add one more item to this discussion. I reject mail in my sendmail server based on a number of criteria. One is that I reject all mail that is sent to me in a foreign character set. Chinese, Russian, Korean, etc. The other is that I reject a bunch of spam that is voluntarily tagged as such using the X-Mailer header set to Direct Email Emailer Platinum Sent with E-Mail Magnet Group Mail EMailing List Pro diffondi Mail Bomber Dynamic Opt-In Emailer MaxBulk Mailer FletMail MailWorkZ GoldMine or the header X-Spam-Warning. Why am I telling you this? Because the mail that I get from Red Hat lists routinely contains this stuff. I really have to question the quality of the guy (again) who admins the mail at Red Hat. -- -Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have - -happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ -Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- -individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
