On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, LuKreme wrote:
On 03 Oct 2014, at 11:42 , Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 03.10.2014 um 19:34 schrieb LuKreme:
[SPAM] is not a spam marker I’ve ever seen so it seems perfectly OK to me
You are assuming, I think wrongly, that the [SPAM] tag is being used because
of a content filter and not simply a tag to identify the name of the list
it is the *default* tag for a lot of commercial spamfilters
if a message was detected as spam but not high enough to drop
Those are very stupid filters then.
Huh?
How else would you suggest that a spam filter mark messages that are
scored high enough to be "spammy" yet not high enough to be
discarded/rejected, in a manner that will clearly convey that status to
the end user?
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown
in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws
that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They
disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit
crime. -- Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
858 days since the first successful private support mission to ISS (SpaceX)
