> From: R. Scott Perry > > > >Len: small businesses that go out of business because they can't solve > >their email delivery problems deserve to got out of business.... > >False problem. People don't design filters to have false positives. > > Yes, they do. You did with your "ACL" test. You designed the test to > block portions of the Internet, knowing that legitimate mailservers would > be in those ranges. If you ignore false positives when designing a spam > test, you're relying on luck to determine if your test is effective. > ... > > Because he has the false belief that he has no false positives. Meanwhile, > all those E-mails to the sales@ account that are bouncing are people who > aren't going to bother complaining, and represent a lot of lost business.
exactly. > > And, just a few days ago, someone E-mailed me and expected a response. My > reply bounced (that's a false positive). I was very nice and then > re-routed the E-mail through our Internet provider's smarthost (your > suggestion!), and that bounced, too. Needless to say, he never got the > free advice he was looking for. And if think scott, who goes out of his way to help others, won't go past the two tries he made, what makes you think someone want to buy something from me (or any of the customers getting email from the example service you posted) will? How many of them would even have the ability to bounce their mail thru another server, just in case their is something wrong at their end? How many of them would even think to do so? Instead, they are likely to decide the problem is at my end and simply go on with those that do reply to their inquiries. > >, if the FP recipient doesn't complain, how important is such an FP, and > >its so-called cost, to either end? > > It's called cutting your losses. > > If someone orders software from us, and the E-mail with the order bounces, > we'll push to get the mail through. But what about someone saying "How do > I fix my mail client to stop sending XYZ vulnerability?" If they are so > clueless that they are rejecting our mail, we're not going to bother > jumping through hoops in hopes to get the E-mail there -- yet we've lost > time by responding. At the same time, many who send out an RFP to multiple vendors generally won't even worry about the ones that come back rejected, figuring the company has gone away. So, the company loses even the opportunity for business and doesn't know it. Again, it boils down to who loses if there are FP's. My ISP would not lose actual money, unless it was found out they were doing such a thing and people moved to another ISP. But every business that misses even one legit email a month (due to FP's or due to being buried in spam) is probably losing money. The question is, is the loss higher than the cost to correct the problem. If you sell $100 packages, probably not. If you sales average $10K+, it probably is. > That really sounds like you're starting a debate of IMGate versus Declude > JunkMail. Which is about as useful as debaiting firewalls versus desktop AV. They do different things, by design, even tho there is some overlap. --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
