It's true that it would be nice if the post office would filter out our junk
mail for us, however, what if you get your average RadioShack flyer...
Some may consider that junk mail, since if you want to buy from RadioShack,
you can go there and find out what's on sale. But what if I'm lazy and WANT
to read that kind of junk - who's to say what is and what isn't junk?
Blocking completely by checking against SPEWS is more of a conservative spam
block, and like others have mentioned, you better be ready for the
concequences, and so should your users.
I personally am quite happy receiving junk email and having just spamassasin
tag it and add it as an attachment to an email so that I can filter it out
on my own (and since it's an attachment, I don't have to worry about those
image links loading up to show spammers I have an active address).
In the end you'll see that everyone has their own idea of what they want for
spam filtering. It sure would be nicer if people just didn't spam!
Eli.
-----Original Message-----
From: exim-users-admin@??? [
mailto:exim-users-admin@exim.org] On Behalf
Of Greg A. Woods
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 4:51 PM
To: Exim Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Exim] rbl server spews...
[ On Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 18:10:31 (+0100), Chris Bayliss wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [Exim] rbl server spews...
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:39:25PM -0400, Eli wrote:
>
> > This is why I really hate when people deny connections/emails based on
> > remotely maintained RBL lists - at most you should use something like
> > spamassasin and just give it a weight of some sort, but still deliver
the
> > message. Let the end user filter out the spam from the real stuff. If
not,
> > it's just like your postman/woman throwing out some of your mail that
they
> > think is garbage, before you even get to see any of it! I'm sure you
> > wouldn't want that happening, even if it was just garbage!
>
> Its more like the postperson/being returning what looks like junk to
> the sender rather than throwing them away - I know quite a few people
> who would like the post office to provide such a service.
Actually with properly implemented rejects at SMTP time it's more like
the postmaster refusing to accept junk mail from the source in the first
place. I would _REALLY_ like to be able to force Canada Post to do that
for my address, and given the number of "no junkmail" stickers on the
front doors of houses just on my very short street I'm assuming a heck
of a lot of other people would like to do the same.
Snail mail has the same problem with return-to-sender that poorly
implemented SMTP servers do. The sender address can be trivially forged
or omitted, and worse I have the distinct feeling that Canada Post, to
pick an example I know, will throw junk mail ("ad mail", "bulk mail",
and similar) in the recyle bin if a home-owner tries to return it, even
if it's addressed mail, and even if there's a perfectly valid return
address, and even when the sender has made it very clear with writing on
the envelope that they would appreciate returns. I've been trying to do
just that to junk that shows up addressed to the previous residents and
it just never stops coming, year after year after year. Note that the
post office charges $$$ to deliver that junk, and they make significant
profit from it (at least Canada Post does).
--
Greg A.
Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <g.a.woods@???>;
<woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird
<woods@???>
--
## List details at
http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim
details at
http://www.exim.org/ ##
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]
