On Friday 16 December 2016 21:19:45 Joe wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 20:55:32 +0000 > > Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The fact that some people do not know > > enough to use Spam folders differently from deleted mail is not a > > reason why the rest of us should have our email dropped. > > The reason why your mail gets dropped is that it cannot accurately be > identified as not-spam, as I'm sure you know.
You have over-cut. Here is what you cut, which is highly relevant: "On Friday 16 December 2016 09:58:36 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > At least in the case of delivery to the SPAM box the mail has been > > actually delivered to the user. > > "Technically", yes. No, not just technically. Actually. The recipient then has the choice whether to ignore it or not." Delivering to a Spam folder, and dropping mail, are simply not the same thing, however hard it may be to distinguish the correct route for any one piece of mail. Lisi. > > If it really is spam, then the Reply-To header is forged, and the last > thing that should be done is to send the message 'back', *quoting* *it* > *in* *full*, to a third party who had nothing to do with it, and who has > now been sent spam from a presumably legitimate mail server. > > The problem is not to do with the silent dropping of spam, which is the > correct behaviour for a mail server which has been foolish enough to > accept it in the first place, but to identify it with 100% accuracy and > thereby to prevent the dropping of genuine email. Solve that and you > can name your price... > > The next best thing is to identify spam at the SMTP transmission stage > and to refuse it, which *does* tell the sender of mis-identified > legitimate email that it has not been delivered.
