Er ok, if an ISP uses maps to insert warning headers, that ISP really
should be smart enough to also ensure that it educates its users what
those headers are. And heck, even if they arent, I beleive the MAPS
website itself has a very clear explanation about this sort of thing.
All I know is, the decision on wether to insert MAPS (or other RBL)
warning headers in a message should be an individual one, made by the
sysadmin running the MTA. If Phil took the /warn option out, it would
just be an inconvenience for all of us that would then have to find the
third party patch that would inevitably be made anyway and install it.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Dave C. [exim-users] <22/06/01 21:56 -0400>:
>
> > Please do not remove the option.
> > RBL should not be trying to dictate what people use the RBL for, since
>
> Not speaking for the RBL, but this message from an RCN/Erols abuse desk
> person (and a lot of the nanae thread it was posted to) might explain things.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=X-RBL-Warning+RBL+MAPS&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=6&ic=1&selm=slrn8drkp2.417.ereshkigal%40hmmm.colo.erols.net>
>
> [quoting part of the post ...]
> >> We had X-RBL-Warning: headers added for a while, but there were quite a
> >> few of our users who automatically assumed that the spam was from the RBL
> >> and we removed it until we've got a site off rcn.com for users to go to
> >> in order to read more about it. Al forwarded a ton of email from our users
> >> to them. Some were clueless and looking for more information and others
> >> were incredibly rude since the users thought it was the RBL spamming them.
> >> I kid you not. I wrote something up for him to send off to the users, but
> >> they shouldn't have to deal with our clueless users.
>
> Now, back to this ...
>
> > it weakens their "We arent rejecting your mail, we just publish the
> > lists, and individual sysadmins can decide what to do about it" stance
> > which (should) absolve them of any liability.
>
> Well, the article I quoted was posted in a day and age when these "cartooney
> lawsuites" were not all that common (March 2000) :)
>
> And again, MAPS has enough work to do without loozers cluttering up their
> mailbox, right?
>
> --suresh
>
--
