From: "Stuart MacDonald" <stuartm@connecttech.com>
To: "'Chase Venters'" <chase.venters@clientec.com>
Cc: "'Krzysztof Halasa'" <khc@pm.waw.pl>, <ellis@spinics.net>,
"'Willy Tarreau'" <w@1wt.eu>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: bogofilter ate 3/5
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 17:05:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <08ec01c6d2c1$67e43d10$294b82ce@stuartm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609071307000.31500@turbotaz.ourhouse>
From: Chase Venters [mailto:chase.venters@clientec.com]
> What are you implying - that SpamCop doesn't make decisions
> about who to
> block and who to not block for third parties? Their weasel wording
It's not an implication, it's a fact.
> I will strongly criticize any service that purports to label
> senders of
> automatic responses as senders of unsolicited mail. The
What would you call it then when I receive a bounce/etc that is in
reponse to a message someone else sent? I certainly never solicited
that.
Perhaps you could send me your snail mail address; I'll solicit some
junk mail but put your address down. But don't call it junk mail when
you receive it, because it was solicited!
> And on the specific issue of autoresponders, I think a reasonable
> compromise is to support DomainKeys. That way if a sender is
> irritated
> that they are receiving automatic responses from messages they didn't
> send, they can personally take action to invalidate the forgery.
IMO one should never have to receive "automatic responses from
messages they didn't send".
> But mark my words: Asking hosts to stop sending bounce messages or
> automatic responses is insane and contrary to over a decade
> of established
> postmaster precedent.
Things change.
..Stu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-07 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-06 5:37 bogofilter ate 3/5 Rick Ellis
2006-09-06 18:00 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-09-06 18:04 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-09-06 18:56 ` ellis
2006-09-06 19:15 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-06 20:56 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2006-09-06 22:05 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-07 11:55 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2006-09-07 13:46 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-07 22:33 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2006-09-07 22:37 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-07 22:58 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2006-09-07 23:02 ` Matti Aarnio
2006-09-07 13:58 ` Stuart MacDonald
2006-09-07 14:01 ` [OT] " Chase Venters
2006-09-07 14:27 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-07 17:35 ` Stuart MacDonald
2006-09-07 18:25 ` Chase Venters
2006-09-07 21:05 ` Stuart MacDonald [this message]
2006-09-07 9:52 ` Matti Aarnio
2006-09-06 20:13 ` Willy Tarreau
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-05 23:57 [RFC 0/5] dio: clean up completion phase of direct_io_worker() Zach Brown
2006-09-06 4:35 ` bogofilter ate 3/5 Zach Brown
2006-09-06 5:00 ` Willy Tarreau
2006-09-06 7:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2006-09-08 22:16 ` Matthias Andree
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='08ec01c6d2c1$67e43d10$294b82ce@stuartm' \
--to=stuartm@connecttech.com \
--cc=chase.venters@clientec.com \
--cc=ellis@spinics.net \
--cc=khc@pm.waw.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox