--On 7 June 2010 17:37:14 +0200 "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk-li...@cybernothing.org> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Brett McDowell wrote: > >> But I've seen several posts to this list suggesting life is better if >> such messages simply never reach the subscribers' inbox. To be honest, >> I don't recall the motivation for that position. > > There've been a couple of studies where users were discovered to be going > into their spam folder, and falling for bank phishing messages there. At Sussex, we made the decision a few years back that we either deliver mail to the INBOX, or reject it at SMTP time. A spam folder, for many users, is equivalent to a blackhole. Rejecting at SMTP time, in theory, allows the sender of a false positive to choose another contact method. > -- > J.D. Falk <jdf...@returnpath.net> > Return Path Inc > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
