Ok, here are the results: 

I received emails from a total of 60 people. (I'm sort of amazed that more
people didn't email.)

I had two rejections, both caused by spamcop blocking the gmail servers. 

I had a couple people who, for what ever reason, I missed replying to, but
on review, I HAD received their emails.

As far as I know, everyone who sent me an email, via the new email server,
got a reply or a rejection note that explained why they were not able to
send. E.g. "spamcop says you spam"

Yesterday, the 18th, it processed 569 emails of which 530 were spam, of the
spam 485 were properly rejected and 45 were accepted. Of the 45 which were
accepted, 1 made it past the filters without being flagged as probable spam.
So that is less than 0.2%, which is just fine. But, more importantly, even
if we assume that the filters had correctly flagged the 485 that the email
server instantly rejected, that is 485 fewer emails that I had to look at to
avoid a false positive.

For more on what I'm doing see:
http://www.aime.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0609b&L=mercury&T=0&X=6FE773356A9159
40B5&P=2949 where you can also read the dissenting opinion from the experts
who tell me my method will cost me "customers" and is not RFC compliant.

Comments welcome.

---
James.
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu 
> [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of James Newtons Massmind
> Sent: 2006 Sep 12, Tue 16:01
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: [OT] please test the new email server
> Importance: Low
> 
> Could everyone please help me test the new email server?
> 
> It is very aggressive with regard to rejecting spam, and I am 
> a bit worried that it will prevent valid emails from getting 
> through. This server is designed to instantly reject email 
> while the sending server is still connected and send back a 
> message as to why it was rejected so that a legitimate 
> sending user at least knows that the message was not delivered.
> What it does NOT do, is send me a copy of rejected emails, 
> the result being that I don't have to look through the 
> several thousand (a day) junk emails I get to try to figure 
> out if there are any false positives from the spam filter.
> 
> If you have not already done so, and it is still in September 
> of 2006, would you please send an email to:
> 
> jamesnewton@massmind.org
> 
> With tanstaafl in the subject.
> 
> Or just click here:
> 
> mailto:jamesnewton@massmind.org?subject=tanstaafl_test
> 
> You can use any subject and text, but please include 
> tanstaafl so I can know why I got the email. (tanstaafl = 
> there aint no such thing as a free lunch).
> 
> 
> I will respond within a day to let you know I received the email.
> 
> NOW: The important part: If you don't get a reply or you DO 
> get a bounce, please let me know what you think of it by 
> forwarding that to me at jamesnewton@piclist.com which is on 
> the old server.
> 
> I REALLY appreciate the help in testing this new system. A 
> number of "experts" are telling me it will not work and I 
> will loose a lot of email from people who are legit, but I 
> don't see why.
> 
> ---
> James Newton, massmind.org Knowledge Archiver 
> james@massmind.org 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767 
> http://www.massmind.org Saving what YOU know.
> 
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change 
> your membership options at 
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist