Re: murphy is listed on spamcop

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

> I was just following your line of reasoning:
> 
> "You cannot justify the bad things that happen as a result of your
> actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached without such bad
> things happening", where:
> 
> action = greylisting
> bad things that happen = delayed email
> 
> Try reducing the level of spam to a 1/10th without false positives
> and without delaying any email.

You cannot justify graylisting by saying "but this is the only way to
stop spam!"  You *can* justify it by comparing the costs against the
benefits.

The worst case costs of well-implemented graylisting should be
something like a short delay in an email message; the worst case of a
false positive rejection can be much much worse indeed.

Thomas