> From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... However, because spam filters can make mistakes, it is > highly desirable (as a sanity check/second opinion) for a human to > double check automatic rejections. Unfortunately, having a human look > at a message and decide whether to forward it on will always be viewed > as moderation/censorship by some regardless of the reasons for doing > so. > ... That seemes to assume that automated spam filters are necessarily based on content and have significant false positive rates. Neither need be true. Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Michael Richardson
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) John Leslie
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Michael Richardson
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James P. Salsman
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Thomas Narten
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Dave Crocker
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Vernon Schryver
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- rule-based moderation (was Re: Mail sent to mi... James P. Salsman
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Jeff Williams
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Melinda Shore