North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Date: Tue Mar 22 11:14:35 2005
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=NfF2pXYzqbYEzZDoIVLeLZZl/jcnd4ih16flsX27MCmpMsYUR0W8DWjr0EtbGaW09NFqwoi55JSeh5M6nqOX/tGk3JHbyicnjDkroFKyKB0ISUOytwGeBjLhlloRP7qaIW8mXi1246CqrKmkYVkWDK8n+UpJAaBKNcIQSVdXJaA=
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 07:27:21 -0800, Wes Hardaker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I wish it were always so easy. I've been talking to an administrator
> lately who's policy is that "loosing occasional email is ok if it
> means we keep out a whole bunch of spam". If they're that far over
That is a far cry from far dumber filtering mistakes that keep
happening, and that I have an issue with.
If an admin has spam in hand - go ahead. Block till its fixed, if the
numbers add up the way this guy says. And be prepared to listen, and
If you are blocking based on your misreading of forged spam, or are
implementing over-extreme filters, and dont want to listen to
complaints about it, or to address false positives, consider
downgrading the infrastructure you manage from "production mailserver"
to "etch a sketch"
More on spam-l or some other more appropriate list. I'm starting to
Suresh Ramasubramanian (email@example.com)