Hi Cameron, > >> Please don't do that. Quoted-printable is broken. > > That is, it makes your messages more difficult to read. > It injects syntax errors into commands and config > file entries that sometimes appear in forums like > this one. It even breaks URLs. neither did i post a config sniplet or an URL. Moreover quoted-printable is officially defined and publically used. To me that reads like it's a de-facto-standard. If it's not your preference, well, ok. There's filters out there which manage to decrypt it properly. Yet compared to locale brokenness, i somewhat find this hilarious (just try to get a working UTF8 locale with shells on FreeBSD, Solaris and Linux from a Windows workstation at a friend you have to work on). > If you can't shut it off, file a bug. > Email and netnews are plain text media. > Client software that breaks it is monkeywrenching > a well thought out design, out of ignorance and > negligence. Microsft does it all the time, but > we're supposed to show more respect for our > community. > > > > how come you quote <2N0u0-7Xz-1@gated-at.bofh.it>, but my mail was > > "<[🔎] 1097231985.18184.19.camel@ganymede>" as can be seen at: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/10/msg00034.html ? > > I'm reading this forum as a newsgroup, on a commercial > netnews provider. (It wouldn't make much sense to subscribe > to it as an email list.) The news company's email to news > gateway changes the message IDs. I think it's supposed to > poison the spam address harvesters. well, to me *that* is more broken than the quoted-printable, but i guess you filed them that bug already (as you give back to the community, right?). > There are dozens of well known, popular DNSBLs. There are > perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of private or > unadvertised DNSBLs. I've tried the ones I can find that try > to map the "dynamic IP" space, because it correlates to the > consumer Microsoft boxes with spambot infections, and none of them > has been worth using. That's why I asked *which one* you thought > might provide even *usable* coverage for this purpose. > It would save me a lot of work. All those which you'd use as blocking DNSBL.. It's your preference which those are. And I didn't say you *HAVE* to replace a denying DNSBL mechanism by a graylisting one, did I? > > > So do you still reckon that DNSBL are too far out for using them as a > > greylisting success probability predictor? > > "Graylisting" isn't SMTP. I'm not ready to give upon SMTP. > I'd rather boycott spammer-friendly ISPs until they are forced > to choose between honest people and spam criminals. There are countries where there only is one reasonable ISP. And due to this monopoly their policies are sometimes pretty strange. For those people it's not an option to switch ISP, because there is none they could go to. (Just reminding.) -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil