Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 05:09:27 +0000 (UTC), Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> How about, "because we have been unfairly listed as being spammers and
> had our mail blocked, even though we were innocent, we refuse to
> participate and endorse a system which in the past as been used to
> unfairly block innocents, including who were unfortunate enough to
> share netblocks with those whose political views were at odds from
> those who had run DNSBL's?"
>
> Contenting filtering, I think is great. Delegating to someone else
> the power to say whether or not a very large number of people will see
> mail from a particular host or network, is more power than I at least
> personally am willing to delegate to someone else.
>
> This is a philosophical issue, and I understand there are those who
> think that DNS blocking lists are wonderful. But I at least am glad
> that the Debian admins have chose to use an approach such as
> spamassassin, rather than DNS blacklists.
<aol>
What he said.
</aol>
If I want spam filtered from my mail, I can do it myself. I pay by the
byte for mail and news I download and then filter, but I've seen far
too many false positives from filtering software (in the case of
cleanfeed and bogofilter, that I've contributed somewhat to) to
tolerate having some anti-spam zealot determine what *I* see.
False negatives are merely annoying. False positives are evil.
--
Frank Copeland
Home Page: <URL:http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fjc/>
Not the Scientology Home Page: <URL:http://xenu.apana.org.au/ntshp/>
Reply to: