Okay. I can appreciate this argument (having worked in large companies myself). But I don't know that this method would be as well applied in my environment. In a big company (or in any company), you're far safer inconveniencing your users (i.e., tagging and releasing) because of the danger of bouncing back false positives.
This is a home environment. My users never want to be bothered with spam. They don't want to have to set up filters on their clients. They never want to see it. Here, I've found that it's far easier to address the occasional false positive with the sender. As far as saving the environment, I'm well familiar with the fact that a HUGE percentage of spam has a spoofed e-mail address in its envelope and header, thus making bouncebacks pointless. However, for the sake of the sender, a bounceback seems the most logical way to let a false positive know that their message has not been received. This is why I would bounce back rather than, say, just drop the message. I'm open to arguments either way. I certainly want to focus on what's most productive for the anti-spam community. But I'm really more interested in an answer to my original question. Does anyone know how I might do this? - Jon on 8/7/04 9:35 AM, Gary Smith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tag and release... Tag and release... It'll save the environment. > > We had a big problem with emails from company X (x being a financial > institution) being tagged as spam for a while. These emails contained > daily valuation reports critical information to some of the clients that > we hosted email for. Though the got tag they still received them. If > they wouldn't have it could have cost them lots of money. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Fullmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 8:26 AM > To: Michele: Blacknight Solutions; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Log, but don't tell > > (Timidly, Jon answers): uh,... yes? > > on 8/7/04 8:54 AM, Michele: Blacknight Solutions at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> On Sat 07 Aug 2004 15:41, Jon Fullmer wrote: >> >>> Right now, I have my action_bounce message including only the total > score >>> [$hits]. This is the way I would like to keep it, as I would rather > not >>> give actual spammers more information to circumvent my system. >> Are you actually bouncing spam?? Please tell me I misread that >> > > >
