Re: best practices for fighting spam with Debian?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:16:03AM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:51:45AM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> >> - does the sender know their mail was not delivered and do they get a
> >> reasonable explanation? I've heard there are spam filters who give a
> >> "user doesn't exist" error which is somewhat disrespectful to genuine
> >> senders. [...]
>
> > I wish this were so [...]
> > Thus mail gets not delivered *without any notification to the
> > sender*.
>
> At least in the case of delivery to the SPAM box the mail has been
> actually delivered to the user.
"Technically", yes.
> The first one is really the problem, where the mail just vanishes and
> both the sender and the receiver have no idea where it went.
My point is, that from the user's perspective (at both ends) those
are more or less equivalent (perhaps the second is even worse,
because the provider can just "wash his hands").
> > This has the potential to kill mail (which for the Big Ones might
> > be a Good Thing: mail is too decentral and too hard to monetarize).
>
> 10 years ago, SPAM was told to kill eMail. Now it's the over-the-top
> anti-SPAM solutions doing the same.
The difference being that in the first case there wasn't a monetary
incentive to kill mail (on the contrary, a slight incentive to not
kill it) and now there is.
Sorry, having my Black Day today :-/
regards
- -- tomás
> Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.
I like this one: made me smile :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlhTuswACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbS3gCeNDBhuT5jwaVKrEZ9VOonyTkX
RcgAn2zMG6OvtpAT/69kMsG6ZikOPhDf
=Vq9E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: