Wednesday, September 17, 2003, 11:42:51 AM, you wrote:
I take the same stance as Robert... I do not respond to any C/R messages as a matter of policy. I put it in the same category as Reading Confirmation requests, acknowledging that there are major differences of course. No thanks, I'm not a spammer and you need to figure out the difference. We need to find a decent way but so far for me the C/R system causes more harm than good and opens up DoS opportunities if widely adopted. -tom RLM> At 9/17/03 9:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Spambully is one of the C/R systems giving C/R a bad name. RLM> They're all theft of service. For every piece of unwanted mail they RLM> block, they send another piece of mail to someone who is, more often than RLM> not, completely unrelated to the message (because the spammer forged that RLM> person's address). RLM> If C/R becomes widespread and a spammer forges your address, you will be RLM> drowned in tens of thousands of challenges to messages you never sent. RLM> It's another step down the road to "I don't give a damn about how much I RLM> annoy everyone else on the Internet as long as my problems are minimized" RLM> -- "SpamBully", indeed. RLM> As a matter of principle, I don't respond to C/R systems, even if it's RLM> someone I know. Maybe when they lose some more mail, they'll stop using RLM> it. RLM> There is a better way to design something like this, which is to reject RLM> mail from all senders who aren't on a whitelist at the SMTP stage, with RLM> the reject message explaining how the sender can add his or her address RLM> to the whitelist. Or just file it in a separate folder for later review RLM> without any sort of challenge at all. But of course, that would RLM> inconvenience C/R users who want to have it both ways by making other RLM> people jump through hoops to filter their mail for them AND receiving a RLM> copy of the mail so they can dig it up manually for senders who refuse to RLM> do so....
