On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be > > acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not > > helpful. > > I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false > positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the > maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so > that the false-positive in question doesn't recur, taking > responsibility for false positives.
So the CBL is fine then. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
