Re: OT: offending sig + headers
On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 05:18:24PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > The reason I bring it up is that it's a spam fighting technique that
> > doesn't make suspected spam disappear, but disallows delivery. So a
> > false positive means someone gets a bounce, which alerts them to the
> > problem.
>
> Which is highly annoying for people who legitimately want to send you
> mail, but aren't already whitelisted. I personally hate it, and
> refuse to subject people I know to such irritation.
Well, I'm probably not going to change your mind. Suffice it to say that
I get mail from people I don't know, due to putting my email address on
my web pages, etc., and I don't get any complaints. Any mail servers
that even approximate proper behavior will whitelist without problem.
> > For your current setup, you might consider adding a reply-to header
> > pointing at the list so that mails don't go to the bogus address by
> > default for humans.
>
> You will note that such reply-to already exists, and has for a rather
> long time... :)
Seems to be there in *this* email, but the one I replied to originally
didn't have it, or mutt ignored it, or something. Anyway... good!
--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
dwchandler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation