On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 07:19:47PM +0100, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the > > Internet works. > > Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this mail handling > program before saying such. Do you really think that everyone should have to jump through hoops for the privilege of communicating with you? Are you that arrogant? > > If you have to send an extra confirmation message every time you send > > an email to someone you haven't communicated with before then it will > > increase the number of messages required by at least 50%. That is an > > unreasonable burden to place on other people. > > I wrote the software primarily for ezmlm mailing lists, please rethink > your statement with this precondition. Then, use it for mailing lists, not for your personal mail. On personal mail, it is entirely inappropriate, especially in situations like this where _you_ requested the e-mail. > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:47:04AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > Still too much. If someone initiates a communication, they should make > > sure they can get the reply. > > Yes that's true. I usually do this. I'm not responsible for the > Reply-To header in my message, the BTS mangled the headers and resent > the message; and it still appears to be from me. I've set > Mail-Followup-To correctly. I'm not interested in receiving private > copies of mail in public discussions; I know where I post, and keep up > with, in this case, the bug's history, and read debian-devel. I've noted > that you two don't want to communicate with me, be it. If you don't want the BTS mail, send it to /dev/null; don't blindly request confirmation. > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > PS If a spam filter blocks a message about an NMU then don't complain > > about not being warned... > > No. You receive a delivery notification, and you receive a bounce if the > delivery fails. You know that your message didn't reach the recipient. And the onus is on them to get pass your stupid filter? So in theory, I could set up my mail server to bounce mail I didn't like/agree with. So if someone e-mails me regarding a bug that I don't want to fix, I bounce it. If someone e-mails me about wanting to NMU my package, I bounce it, etc. And that way I'd be immune from people NMU'ing my package. That's BS. > On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 04:48:50PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > > For reference, I will not reply to such a message, but I will consider > > putting the entire domain in my spam filter if such messages continue. > > This is what could cause it. 'Stupid' content based spam filters > delivering false positives to /dev/null. Neither the sender nor the > recipient know about the delivery failure. What's stupid is people who are arrogant enough to think that everyone whom they communicate with should have to spend extra time (bandwidth, etc) getting their message through a filter. Plus, the assume guilty until proven innocent thing is ridiculous. What's also stupid is people who deliver messages found to be spam to /dev/null. What makes sense is to save all mail, and actually _look_ through messages tagged as spam to ensure that there are no False Positives. SpamAssassin can do this, and does it well. There are better solutions to the spam problem than yours. -- Duncan Findlay
Attachment:
pgphlVBlgYKIK.pgp
Description: PGP signature