> Admittedly, we're a small ISP and may not be representative of the > entire group, but I'm not convinced we would even use such a > product.
Okay, makes sense. Many admins would quite sensibly not want to surrender control, and server resources, to a chaotic--not to say ignorant--user base. And yet... > Every so often I feel as though I'm a "censor" and I get an uneasy > feeling. ...this appears to be a very "Pro" sentiment regarding user-level control! Let me try to figure you out. :)) > If we allow individuals to control their own destiny with antispam > parameters, wouldn't we also have to allow them to control the > kill.lst and domain processing rules?? I don't think so. The reason one moves to per-user rules is because some users can't help getting involved with people who send through compromised, blacklisted, mismanaged servers, et al. It's not that any users want *unsolicited* mail, in my experience; some are just willing to accept more of it in order to get more of their frustratingly shady, yet admittedly consensual, correspondence. (I'm leaving out those who are unable to find l o n e l y h o u s e w i f e webcams on their own and truly need spammers to feed them their leads.) If you think your KILL.LST is killing false positives, you've got a problem; I believe the KILL.LST should be for sure things only, as it's not weightable. Likewise for domain-level rules: though you haven't given examples of what you're doing in IMail as opposed to in Declude, I don't see the syllogism that leads to opening everything up. > I'm often tempted to delete the kill.lst, erase the domain > processing rules, stop Declude and just let the floodgates wide > open. Then our customers might realize the impact of what we do for > them. This sounds like a very dangerous concept: it'll surely instill confidence for many and get you their thumbs-up, yet it's bound to create fear in others and a sudden demand for user-level controls. I'm not getting your overall thrust (though it's perfectly reasonable to be ambivalent!). If you fear that you're a censor, which could apply if your EULA does not sufficiently detail what people are paying for, you need to either change your published policies or change your real actions. If you simply want to come clean about some strict measures you're taking that aren't sufficiently explained, then create a revised document with "minor changes" and send a unruffling, innocent message to your users with a link to the URL. If you really feel guilty and want to start offering those features to some, but not without user permission, well, it's time to get on the per-user bandwagon. And if you want to stop taking those measures outright, just do--and don't bother telling anyone, IMO. > I'm not sure I'm ready for such a product and I certainly don't think our > clients are. Sounds like you're definitely unsure. There's a bunch of uncertainty in your writing! -Sandy --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
