[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Please confirm your message

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.


Reply to: