Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ntluser
I think we are wishing for effective and efficient Anti-SPAM measures that eliminates SPAM and nothing else.
Even if NTL just get rid of 50% of real SPAM and leave proper messages intact it will be a major improvement.
From what you say,it appears..as if we didn't know..that NTL is behind the times and part of the problem, not part of the solution. Maybe when someone successfully hacks their servers they will sit up and pay attention.
|
Problem is, no computer algorithm can ever be as good at deciding what's spam & whats not. And how many false positives is acceptable? 1%? 5%? 0%? It all depends on the person, the value of the content of the messages, the chances the content is similar to spam messages blah blah blah.
If you think about how long it takes for your own Outlook/Mailwasher/whatever rules to sort out what's (probably) spam & what isn't, then its probably only a few seconds a day for most people. Any NTL side spam filtering is unlikely to be better at spotting what's spam than your own personal rules, so it's likely that it'll be no more efficient. But multiply those few seconds by every NTL customer & you've got a huge amount of processing power requirement, which to be frank I'd rather see spent somewhere else that'll be of more benefit to most users.
Add in the legal risk to NTL of providing editorial control of customers emails, extra CS time dealing with 'wheres the email my customer sent me..' complaints, etc, and I can't see how it could be better than leaving it to individuals to take responsibility for controlling their own inboxes. Perhaps if it was to be offered as an additional cost service it could make commercial and practical sense, but somehow I don't think many people would be that keen to pay.
I can see the argument for having some kind of filtering for the big show stopper spams with huge attachments that actually stop the service from working, but even for those I'd just like to see them held server side giving you the opportunity to block, delete, or receive based on the header or body text, and I don't think these are that common anyway.
Having said all of that, I don't actually have any
answers to the problem itself
!