Re: Fwd: Please confirm your message
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 19:19, 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.
When you have a very small number of people doing something totally contrary
to what everyone else on the Internet is doing, and expecting that everyone
else should go out of their way to accomodate them, then you don't need to do
any research into who they are.
> > 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.
Such things are fine for mailing lists. It's much the same as a regular list
subscription.
It is not suitable for individual email addresses.
> 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.
It's not that I wish to avoid communicating with any PEOPLE. I just want to
avoid communicating with auto-responders.
> 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.
Who said anything about a false positive or /dev/null?
When I filter out a domain I make my mail servers return a 5xx code to the
SMTP daemon that's sending the message, in the case of a false positive then
the person sending the message should get a bounce (if their mail server is
functional they will get a bounce).
When someone convinces me that their domain is lame and I configure my servers
to block it the refusal of their mail is not a false-positive, it is a
correct positive!
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: