> Sorry, the ends don't justify the means. False positives punish
> the ISP customer, who still has to pay her monthly/weekly/per-byte
> fees, whether the ISP fixes the problem or not. I appreciate the
> goal that blacklists are trying to achieve, but the means victimize
> innocents. Not all ISPs on these lists are "unethical." To suppose
> otherwise is no different than supposing someone guilty because
> they take the 5th Amendment.
a "suspicious" marking would be more adequate than "guilty".
the only thing that i always want when using spam filters
is the choice to see what it does block, maybe by some marking.
I then can decide from time to time to check that "odd" category
and to qualify that as a "success" result of the specific software.
i dont like the smell of "censorship" - this starts for me when
its getting non public and the rules are represented by some sort
of secret, unknown for the participiants. but i dont think thats it here.
a "moderated" spam filter would be nicest, but this means that
someone has permanent duty for letting falsely blocked mail pass,
maybe by meance of a specific e-mail notification. further tuning
by individual needs is another point of importance. letting things
block or go trough that turned out to be false for some reason.
hey, were there any immediate filter adjustments possible for
the recent mailings? (i dont mean the shut down and replace.)
are we still takling about problems with SPAM or with SPAM-Filters?
i think its merely the second. why? because the approach to the first
is not working - "extinct" one spammer, get two new from somewhere else.
the bad thing is that for this block, it was an unwanted side effect.
a total result that initially originates from the ever increasing
abuse of e-mail systems by people that only think of their own advantage
and do not respect the whishes and privacy of thers. e-mail spam is
a "comercial" intention, but it does never pay out for the receiver.
-Alex.
