Re: Look at these update from M$ Corporation.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:30:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:57:30 -0700, Alan Connor <alanconnor@earthlink.net> said:
>
> > If any mail comes to me from an email address or domain that isn't
> > on my pass list, it goes to /dev/null and an auto-response is sent
> > to whatever return address the sender supplied.
>
> > It asks them to re-send the mail including a password on the subject
> > line and insists that they use it with the same address used to
> > acquire it.
>
> > Obviously, if the address is invalid, they never get the reply.
>
> Hopefully, then, you don't need any answers I may send out
> privately, since I send all such resent requests to the bit
> bucket. _That_ is the problem with this approach -- you are actively
> deciding to forego any unexpected email coming from people who are
> not on your OK list. Participating on a public forum like this
> mailing list or USENET also exposes one to unexpected correspondence
> off channel -- and I have had conversation that I would not have
> liked to have missed.
If you decide to go off channel and send a mail in private, why not just
reply to a resent request? At least with tmda (and I gather, also with
Alan's program) you are automatically added to the whitelist. _If_ you
decide to go off channel, you only have to reply _once_. As Richard
already said, why not just accept (or at least tolerate) both filtering
and C-R?
With tmda, your mail is not sent to /dev/null. It is queued and a
challenge is sent back. You only have to reply, with or without the
body, add nothing, do nothing, don't look up your sentmail folder, or
whatever. Just reply. I don't use C-R myself (I use SpamAssassin), but
am rather sympathetic towards C-R.
David
Reply to: