On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 16:16 -0700, Les wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 11:06 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 10:17 -0700, Les wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 09:35 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:29 -0700, Les wrote:
>>>>> But is 99.99% delivery sufficient? I receive more than 150 emails
>>>>> day (ones that I am interested in), and every few days I need to
>>>>> certain emails about customer relations and ongoing projects. 99.99
>>>>> percent means I would miss one every 66 days. If the one that I
>>>>> cost me a contract, it might not matter whether I received the rest
>>>>> not. Currently I have to parse through the junk mail locally and
>>>>> remotely about once a week. the ISP junk folder often has more than
>>>>> 1200 emails in it. THe local one about 30. This adds about 1/2 day
>>>>> overhead every week to recapture what should have come through.
>>>>> Personally I think the world needs to eliminate spam, or at least
>>>>> every effort to seriously reduce it.
>>>> but your example completely misses the point.
>>>> the 'Junk' directory is a result of some type of agent parsing
>>>> e-mail, scoring it and redirecting it based on a score.
>>>> The point of greylisting is always about (or virtually always...depends
>>>> upon various implementations anyway) sender/recipient/smtp server
>>>> 'tuples' and 'Temporary Failure' /SMTP result codes 450
and whether the
>>>> sender attempts redelivery.
>>>> I would suggest that rather than prove the argument about the problems
>>>> with greylisting, you have proven the opposite because if you can lop
>>>> approximately 70% of that junk mail off the top via greylisting, you
>>>> wouldn't have to look through so much 'junk' to find the
>>>> that inevitably occur with any type of spam scoring system.
>>> I cannot argue the value of greylisting. But efficiency is in the eye
>>> of the beholder. My time is limited. My work valuable, and my customer
>>> correspondence is dictated by my customer, not my email policy. I am at
>>> the mercy of the ISP here, and the customer. Yet I am the one who
>>> suffers loss, not the ISP, not the customer who will find someone to do
>>> his work. Yet you as the web person thinks this is effective. I cannot
>>> speak to school systems, only professional uses. Time is money and lost
>>> opportunity is even more valuable, resulting in loss that cannot be
>>> measured, yet ultimately may determine the success or failure of my
>>> I would like to take this thought "out of the box". The methods
>>> currently in place, grey listing, parsing for key words, and other
>>> simplistic means, while effective at reducing traffic are not really the
>>> desired solution by users, who would like 100% success in getting their
>>> desired email. And while I cannot spout statistics about loss, I know
>>> it happens from personal experience. The question at hand is how to
>>> avoid even more loss. It is a quality issue, and today the quality
>>> standard is not 99.99%, it is 99.9999% (six nines or six sigma) in most
>>> industries. To say that 99.99 is good enough is the path for GM and
>>> Ford, not Toyota and Nissan. Think of it that way. So how do we
>>> improve by two decades of quality in this "war" against spam?
>> greylisting is just one of a lot of tools available to the mail server
>> administrator - all of them are calibrated to minimize the junk mail
>> delivered to the end users and of course minimizing delivery failures
>> and false positive scoring by various mechanisms.
>> End users of course are the ones ultimately affected and you seemingly
>> want to open an end user discussion about a server level
>> technology...please don't as it won't provide clarity to anyone.
>> If you are losing e-mails, evaluate the filtering system that you use at
>> end user level and discuss the methodologies employed by your mail
>> provider with them.
> This is the same sort of nonsense that the carmakers spouted about
> quality in the 70's. See where it got them.
> This is an end user product. Clarity is the way the user sees it, not
> the way the provider sees it.
> I know there is no sense arguing this, I have dealt with engineers and
> quality issues for years. The only way that attention comes is when
> someone provides the user with higher quality and the engineer is
> provided with a pink slip when his job goes away.
> It is coming. Wait for it... wait for it....
aside from your resurrecting a discussion that is 2 weeks old and
aside from your continued insistence to inject user level concerns on a
topic that was completely about SMTP/MTA administration...
aside from the fact that you have now tried to render a technical
discussion on strategic mail handling to a metaphor that has no
I'd say you have contributed nothing to the discourse at all.
I will repeat...you are in control over your own e-mail.
If you don't like how your e-mail provider handles your e-mail, you can
My comments on this topic were directly solely to a system administrator
handling a mail account that was job jobbed. How did this concern you? I
still have no idea.
Question. Could not the request for a return receipt solve all of this?