On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Chris Thompson wrote:
> "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???> writes:
> [...]
> > And unfortunately it doesn't even help sometimes. My most recent attempt
> > at educating the clueless met with resounding failure:
> >
> > > Yes we do refuse mail from <>. There is no reason to accept it from an
> > > unknown sender.
> > >
> > > Also if you would please notice the reason given is that we are trying
> > > to reduce unwanted spam. If you are trying to send mail to us that is
> > > unsolicited spam mail then I am very glad it is working and has stopped
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Have a nice day.
>
> It's probably impossible to cause such people to alter their behaviour
> without causing them pain (i.e. blocking their domain), but maybe a last
> ditch attempt at reason would be to refer them to RFC 2505 (aka BCP 30)
> "Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs", section 2 (6a) & 2.6.1, which
> is quite firm on the subject. I notice that Philip's canned message
> doesn't use that particular missile.
>
> If you did want to move on to blocking their domain until they mend their
> ways, then exim 3.20's sender_verify_callback_domains might come in useful.
I'm running a fairly low volume server, and I already have that set to
*, so their messages are already being blocked. In fact, that is what
caused me to bring up this issue in the first place (by asking who had
the canned "Hey idjit, dont block mail from:<>" letter) ;-> I've since
sent a slightly modified version to the postmaster of the site in
question. ("Hey idjit, dont block mail from:<>, becuase if you do you
wont be able to send mail to my server")
>
> Chris Thompson
> Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
--
