Dave Lugo wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012, W B Hacker wrote:
>>
>> Lorens Kockum wrote:
>>> The exact same question was sent by someone calling himself "Sam
>>> Jones" to the postfix mailing list at almost exactly the same
>>> time. Peddling one's services by soliciting comparisons with
>>> competitors is so pass? . . .
>>>
>>
>> Sure hope he convinces more of the parasite-classes to use PowerMTA,
>> then if that is his goal:
>>
>> ====
>>
>> deny regex = ^Received:: .*PowerMTA
>>
>
>
> Yeah, why would you want to receive mail from any of:
>
> angieslist
> papajohns
> thinkgeek
> bankofamerica
> hulu
> newegg
> bmwusa
> allstate
> expedia
>
> I guess if you're not in NA, a lot of those don't matter to your users.
>
> I'm just sayin'...
>
>
That is not a problem atall.
BofA customer since '75. Add several US utility firms, incuding my own
'lectric company and Verizon ('til they cut their own FiOS one time
too-many and got booted). Add also airlines, rental cars, travel
agencies, and several other 'Fortune 400' I use now and then to the list.
Not a sirpise to discover that most do NOT use PowerMTA for direct
customer communication - only for spamvertising.
They aren't entirely stoopid.
NONE are affected wherein billing is left 'dead-tree' and balances,
payments, or bookings managed online
NONE are affected when the 'secure online' messaging centers are used.
As they usually must be, anyway.
End of the day, hard-blocking PowerMTA spew is still a low/no hassle
plus. It has not even required offsetting White Listing. Which, after
all, is dead-easy, and would have skipped that acl clause and many more.
A very LARGE plus, blocking PowerMTA is, as it smacks the multiple
legions of entirely unrelated Merchant Bankers that are NOT 'desired'
correspondents. It isn't as if that MTA had any other purpose but
high-volume spew, after all.
I may be lazy. Consumately so.
But I 'laze' on the side of the time-efficiency of my user-community,
not being swamped by spam out of 'you can't DO that' helplessness.
Bill
---
韓家標
