Re: Fwd: Please confirm your message
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:40:53AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:26:34AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > > It's easy to be effective if you don't care about false positives.
> > Yes, and unless you consider people who either:
> > 1) are too lazy to confirm
> > 2) have a philosophical objection to confirming
> > false positives, then there are no false positives with confirmation systems.
> Any mail you want to read that gets blocked by a spam filter is a
> false positive, whoever it may be from. Why're you trying to cloud the
> issue with inane word games? There are already sensible definitions for
> these words.
The key issue here is that the mail isn't blocked. It's simply held in
another place until confirmed. It doesn't become a "false positive" until it
is deleted without being read.
> Note that, conversely, "Hi, I'm a program and I don't know who you are,
> and don't trust you, please spend some of your valuable time to overcome
> my paranoia" can quite reasonably be classed as "mail you don't want to
> read", especially if it's on behalf of someone who's asking you a favour.
Yes, and people are perfectly within their right to drop such messages (or
any messages, for that matter) into the bit bucket, just like they're within
their right to drop bounce messages. But they shouldn't be surprised when
their original message is either dropped, or read weeks late.
BTW, anyone who e-mails you and then asks you to confirm your reply is
either using broken software, or doesn't have their outgoing mail headers set
As a side note, I am pretty amused by the people in this thread who say
"don't use these systems, they're antisocial", and then follow that up with
"I'm going to blacklist anyone who uses these systems".. I guess their
definition of antisocial is different than mine.
Adam McKenna <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>