On Wed March 4 2009 08:48:18 Paweł Leśniak wrote: > But then we come to definition of spam. It's in simple words unwanted > message.
Too simple, and not correct. The true definition of spam is UBE: unsolicited bulk email. Most spammers put out messages that a tiny percentage of recipients want to see. It's how they keep making money at it. Postmasters who fail to understand what spam is contribute to the problem, which is this: email has become nearly unusable for many people, and would be unusable for everyone without sane strategies to control the spew. I bet 95% of all SMTP traffic is abuse. > Also IMHO I'll get much more "false positives" with zen then with > authentication if for example I'd be interested in getting money and > medicines offers. We get here to definition of "false positives" > which can be very different for different customers. And that leads For the most part, I don't care what the end user thinks, for reasons implied above. If they solicited email from a legitimate (i.e., not listed on SBL and not using zombies) bulk sender, they'll get it. If they solicited email from a spammer, oops, it's blocked. We all owe it to the Internet to limit spammers' access to our clue-deprived users who might otherwise help keep them in business. I try to explain it to them. No, it's not easy. No, I am not managing any large sites at the moment, but if I was, I'd put up explanations with links on a http://postmaster.example.com/ Web site. Most people who claim that Zen gives "false positives" are not using reject_rbl_client properly. Obviously, you do not reject_rbl_client before permit_sasl_authenticated. But in your case I don't know what you're saying. I think the issue of authentication that you bring up might be irrelevant, except perhaps for the narrow "issue" of sender equals recipient. I haven't noticed a significant problem with such spam, which is probably attributable to Zen. -- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
