UOL Anti spam is back, again...

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 15:11, jdow wrote:

> Craig, sue me. I am not going to REJECT for multiple reasons, one of which
> is "howinell do you do this via fetchmail." Another reason is ideological.
> The RFCs are broken in this regard. They were generated in a world that had
> not gone as mad as it has become now.

No, there are still people who believe email should be as reliable
as possible.

>  The only sane way to handle these
> cretinous C/R messages is tossing them out the window. I categorically
> refuse to deal with them. And specific people who use them end up in my
> /dev/nul list. I *specifically* do NOT want to see their trash mail. And
> no RFC is gonna force me to see them while I am alive.

After it is delivered to your mailbox or processing agent (procmail)
it is reliably delivered as far as anyone else is concerned. No
RFC applies once it is under your control. Go ahead and ignore it.

> It's the RFCs and attitudes behind those RFCs that need modification.

No, the sender needs to know if the delivery mechanism is broken.

> (I bet you do not approve of spam filters that simply /dev/null very obvious
> spam, too. It's your prerogative. But I think such an action is stupid if
> you are not interested in keeping spam statistics.)

If you don't care about receiving any mail or checking the
correctness of your own filters, that's fine.  Just don't suggest
that the transports that affect everyone else should be
broken too.

-- 
 Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com