On 7/16/2010 1:24 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> I disagree, Moose :-)
>
> I was speaking of an email:
> 1 containing nothing but a link to a website and either
> 2a sent using a forged address or
> 2b sent from George's PC without his knowledge.
Yes, I agree.
> Per 1 in that list, I believe it was correctly diagnosed as spam.
Here I am not so sure I agree. It's not that unusual for me to send or receive
an email with a simple link that's been
agreed on beforehand. Is that suspicious enough, assuming the link hasn't been
identified as malign in a further step,
to filter the message out?
It's so clear and easy to send an email with the text in the subject, as
"Here's the link to Joe's site.", with only the
link in the body. The recipient knows instantly what it's about; what more is
needed? Maybe I should rethink that, and
add a bunch of words?
> NB I am not talking about the failed message to Brian Swale, which if caught
> somewhere as spam was indeed incorrectly identified.
And yet, it was not spam, in the true sense. It was a desired email from a
regular correspondent, and with a great deal
of content, only one small part of which was a link to a possibly malicious
site. I wonder if, rather than a spam
filter, it was bounced entirely for having a link on a bad list in it. That
would explain why it wasn't in a spam
folder, and appears to have disappeared entirely.
I prefer what Thunderbird does, sequestering questionable mail in the Junk
folder and not loading images, etc. unless
asked. If my situation were like Brian's, I'd have easily found the expected
email in the Junk folder, rather than
having to go through shenanigans.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|