Re: Spamassasin over RBL, was Re: rblsmtpd -t?]
On Fri, 3 May 2002 00:43, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:57:54PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If you're in contact with any senior people at these companies suggest
> > to them that they use different mail servers (with different IP
> > addresses for outgoing traffic) for different purposes. Then when
> > their advertising server is listed as a spam source their corporate
> > server will still be usable.
>
> what are you doing, russell? you're giving a free clue to mainsleaze
> spammers.
>
> bad!!!
>
> the *only* thing that is going to stop these scum from spamming is if
> they realise it will damage their ability to communicate.
I agree that we have to hurt spammers to make them stop, and I also admit
that my previous message could help some spammers. However I believe that my
suggestion is much more useful in helping legitimate businesses avoid getting
mistakenly listed as spammers. There have been quite a few times that I have
dealt with legit companies to find that their servers were listed in spam
lists, in several of those cases I knew that the companies had good anti-spam
policies and that the reports were therefore mistaken. So the fact that they
had one server doing both regular email and the opt-in advertising mailing
list hurt them (and me).
> > This is a simple chance but can save huge amounts of pain for everyone
> > concerned.
>
> unfortunately, pain is a neccessary part of the cure for this disease.
Not pain for innocent people though.
--
If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines
of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do
whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by
posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: