Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
