From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932113AbWFLTQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:16:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932109AbWFLTQR (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:16:17 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:39359 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932103AbWFLTQP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:16:15 -0400 To: "jdow" Cc: "Gerhard Mack" , "Bernd Petrovitsch" , , Subject: Re: VGER does gradual SPF activation (FAQ matter) References: <193701c68d16$54cac690$0225a8c0@Wednesday> <1150100286.26402.13.camel@tara.firmix.at> <00de01c68df9$7d2b2330$0225a8c0@Wednesday> <01bb01c68e50$93753de0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 21:16:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: <01bb01c68e50$93753de0$0225a8c0@Wednesday> (jdow@earthlink.net's message of "Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:46:53 -0700") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "jdow" writes: > Krzysztof, the point here is that experience with active spam > filtering indicates that there is no such thing as "obviously bad > messages" that will not catch some good messages in its broad > brush. Sure, but if someone bounces a message for whatever reason I assume it's (at that point) obviously bad. It doesn't necessarily means spam, it might as well be a "detected virus", "user unknown" etc. And yes, you can usually reject them in SMTP session. Doing that fixes a real problem. -- Krzysztof Halasa