on Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 07:59:57PM -0700, Steve Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:23:59 +0200 > David Fokkema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm using SA. It's just that I don't mind C-R and like the general > > concept, but I see many people who's opinions I value and who's mails > > I'd rather not send to /dev/null would not respond to a challenge, > > either out of principle, annoyance or feasibility. > > Now that I've spent the past several minutes ranting against C-R I can > think of one instance where it would be useful. SA scored mail between, say, > 5 and 8. That marginal stuff. Switch it to temp reject but send a C-R. The > 5-8 stuff from my server is ~22 in ~2600. Of that, so far, there have been 0 > false positives. However in the rare case of a false positive it would allow > the person on the other side to get through if needed. IE, the vast majority > of spam is blocked and no message generated to clutter my queue. The vast > majority of real messages get through. It is only that grey area of <1% where > messages need to be sent out and of that less than .1% (I'd wager) would > actually hit someone. *That* would be an appropriate use, IMHO.
And this is more legitimate than you scanning the messages yourself, and adding the addresses to your whitelist or spamlist, appropriately, how? Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? VAR with attitude -- Automation Access: http://www.aaxnet.com/
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
