Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Randy B. Singer" data-source="post: 1934425" data-attributes="member: 190607">I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a valid argument.&nbsp; There is no 100% guarantee that a telegram, snail mail, fax, etc. will be delivered either.&nbsp; But all of these tend to be extremely reliable.&nbsp; One does the best that one can.&nbsp; E-mail is not so un-reliable that one ever has to avoid using it.&nbsp; Businesses use it all the time because it is plenty reliable.How this logically relates to the problem of server-based anti-spam software keeping you from ever seeing false-positives, I don't know.That might be an additional step that one can take for absolutely vital individual communications.&nbsp; But no one does that for the regular course of important business communications.&nbsp; It would be onerous to do so.I certainly don't see it as a reasonable remedy to the possibility that a server-based anti-virus program will do a false-positive on an important legitimate e-mail and as a result you will never see it. On the other hand, if your ISP was filtering out e-mails that you would have preferred to receive, and the sender never got around to telling you that they had sent you an e-mail, how would you know that you had been missing important e-mails?I suppose that the importance of one's scheme to deal with spam rests with what sort of correspondence you are sending and receiving.&nbsp; If you miss an e-mail from your mom, it's probably not going to ruin your life.&nbsp; However, if you are an attorney, and you miss one or more e-mails from a client, or the court, or from opposing counsel, it could be a huge problem at best, and a disaster at worst.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Randy B. Singer, post: 1934425, member: 190607"] I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a valid argument. There is no 100% guarantee that a telegram, snail mail, fax, etc. will be delivered either. But all of these tend to be extremely reliable. One does the best that one can. E-mail is not so un-reliable that one ever has to avoid using it. Businesses use it all the time because it is plenty reliable. How this logically relates to the problem of server-based anti-spam software keeping you from ever seeing false-positives, I don't know. That might be an additional step that one can take for absolutely vital individual communications. But no one does that for the regular course of important business communications. It would be onerous to do so. I certainly don't see it as a reasonable remedy to the possibility that a server-based anti-virus program will do a false-positive on an important legitimate e-mail and as a result you will never see it. On the other hand, if your ISP was filtering out e-mails that you would have preferred to receive, and the sender never got around to telling you that they had sent you an e-mail, how would you know that you had been missing important e-mails? I suppose that the importance of one's scheme to deal with spam rests with what sort of correspondence you are sending and receiving. If you miss an e-mail from your mom, it's probably not going to ruin your life. However, if you are an attorney, and you miss one or more e-mails from a client, or the court, or from opposing counsel, it could be a huge problem at best, and a disaster at worst. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item. 🍎