Hi Don, On Sonntag, 1. März 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > I've already droped in rules to deal with this; the previous ones > hadn't taken effect due to a warning that I didn't catch.
Thanks.
> It doesn't really matter to me what you folks decide, but since you
> decided as a group not to do moderation, some how claiming that
> listmaster@ is the nefarious party is rather disingenuous.
I didnt claim that. I claimed that filtering backscatter will not work in the
long run and didnt work in the last week. The latter is definitly true, for
the former I am very happy to be proven wrong.
(I just doubt it will be the case in the long run: there will be always new
backscatter (new languages, new wordings) which is something which can
hardled without redesigning email and people, thats why I think we will go to
moderation some day, just because keeping subscribed people is more
importannt than a delay in posting appearance (and the potential of loss due
to bad moderation) of unsubscribed posters.)
> It certainly doesn't motivate this listmaster to have anything more to
> deal with this issue. Best of luck.
I'm sorry that my frustration about a problem you're fighting well has
demotivated you. You're work is very much appreciated.
(Sigh, _I_ can deal with such backscatter, mental ignore works just fine _for
me_ with the tiny amount your filters let through. The lists just doesnt seem
to want to / aint able.)
To bring this back to something more constructive again, as I want to help
improve the filters, I'd still like to know the answer to this:
Do you also requiere three backscatter reports like you do for spam submitted
over the webinterface?
regards,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
