Dnia 12.01.2026 o godz. 11:57:05 Andrew C Aitchison via mailop pisze: > >Senders that are too low volume to be automatically classified should be > >flagged for manual analysis, and in case of such senders only the results of > >manual analysis should be taken into account when deciding spam/not spam. > > Hmm. Interesting, but this has major privacy issues.
Manual analysis does not necessarily involve looking into message content. But even if it involves this, I think that anybody using email must take into consideration that the postmaster (speaking in RFC terms) will have sometimes to look into the message content to take the best action to ensure deliverability. That's their job. For example in case of a config error, if messages get "stuck" somewhere in the queue, you sometimes have to take a look at them to determine where they should be sent. Or if someone is mail-bombed, I would not object against mail admin looking into their mailbox and deleting all mailbomb messages while keeping the legitimate mail. That may involve reading the messages to actually determine which is which. Of course the best case is when you know your users so you know what is expected and what is not - ie. you are a mail admin for an organization or company that runs their internal mail server for members/employees/etc. I was in that position for many years and I can remember quite a few cases when I had to look at someone's mail to resolve some problem. The people who do this should be legally and contractually bound to keep all the informations they can get in this way secret, and not make any use of them. There were times when this was obvious for anyone doing mail admin job... -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa [email protected] -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
