On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling
something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you
have to send e-mail to the seller's address provided in the ad.
If the person is wanting to receive emails from you (as in the case of
them selling something) they should be regularly checking their spam
folders - if not, they are losing out on sales. That's their loss.
If the message
ends in his/her spam folder, he/she has no clue to look there for it -
unless you have another way to contact the recipient and tell him to look
there. That's a more problematic case.
So, if you don't have another way to contact the recipient, how is it
better that the recipient has zero chance of seeing the message than it
going into their spam folder where they do have a chance of seeing it?
We can think of two quite opposite cases here.
The problem is that the receiving system can't tell the difference. So,
you either accept "spam" and semi-hide it, or you reject it meaning that
the user has no chance of finding the message (or you break SMTP and
fake a rejection when you have really accepted it). In your first
situation, rejecting the messages is very bad. In the second situation,
rejecting the messages *may* be better than accepting and semi-hiding -
but only if you have another viable way of contacting the recipient. So,
in general, rejecting is the worse option.
--
Paul Smith Computer Services
Tel: 01484 855800
Vat No: GB 685 6987 53
Sign up for news & updates at http://www.pscs.co.uk/go/subscribe
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
