I have to agree that anyone who uses this approach alone is asking for trouble - and deserves to lose what they lose. Good spam filtering does not have to put a high percentage of good mail in the spam box - we get almost no false positives, but I'll admit we don't have a 100% filter rate either. That's an acceptable tradeoff.
This approach would be bad enough if users at least were able to put certain addresses and domains on the whitelist manually, and did so. That would allow, for instance, this type of transaction to take place reasonably easily. But, without it? It's like cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Kayza Kleinman
Director
Nonprofit Helpdesk
Jewish Community Council of Greater Coney Island
www.nphd.org <http://www.nphd.org/>
www.jccgci.org <http://www.jccgci.org/>
www.nphd.org/blog <http://www.nphd.org/blog>
Helping you do good - Better
-----original message-----
>>;While processing an online donation to a nonprofit I volunteer for, this issue came up. A new members email with membership info was "returned" with this message. This means that unless the org "jumps through hoops"; they can not send the normal semi-automated email membership greeting. The general feeling I have heard is that anyone who uses this kind of "service" deserves not to get any email they are rejecting. While spam is a pain, personally, even with the lightest spam "filtering" the percentage of good stuff put in the spam file is too high to be acceptable (and that means you have to look through the spam anyway). It seems like you might as well not use email at all as to use this kind of approved sender approach.>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
.