<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top Ten Anti-Spam Tips for Business</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.allspammedup.com/2009/07/top-ten-anti-spam-tips-for-business/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.allspammedup.com/2009/07/top-ten-anti-spam-tips-for-business/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:23:31 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Quinlan</title>
		<link>http://www.allspammedup.com/2009/07/top-ten-anti-spam-tips-for-business/comment-page-1/#comment-2644</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Quinlan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.allspammedup.com/?p=1198#comment-2644</guid>
		<description>Nice article.

A two-stage strategy for anti-spam is actually not a good idea if you have a top-notch email security appliance at the border.  The amount of leftover spam is very low and you&#039;re likely to have a similar proportion of additional false positives compared to any additional caught spam.  Two stages are only really needed if your border solution stinks.

A related point about end-user rules.  I&#039;d suggest that most people stick with blocking senders and domains they don&#039;t like.  Anything beyond that is probably inviting more false positives than not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article.</p>
<p>A two-stage strategy for anti-spam is actually not a good idea if you have a top-notch email security appliance at the border.  The amount of leftover spam is very low and you&#8217;re likely to have a similar proportion of additional false positives compared to any additional caught spam.  Two stages are only really needed if your border solution stinks.</p>
<p>A related point about end-user rules.  I&#8217;d suggest that most people stick with blocking senders and domains they don&#8217;t like.  Anything beyond that is probably inviting more false positives than not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
