I said:
>Likewise, it's not fair to blame a vendor if they choose the cheapest
>shipment option and your package is lost, stolen, or damaged?
Anton Cohen wrote:
>No one said anything about cheapest.
"Cheap" isn't always just about cost.
I said:
>Personally, I detest messages which claim to come from somebody I know
>but examination of the headers reveals they actually came from such a
>marketing company. Even if the message was authorized, I object to the
>practice as fraudulent.
Anton Cohen wrote:
>The reality is the exact opposite. It's best practice to use outside
>services or separate servers for mass mail, you don't want
>your corporate email server's reputation being tarnished by mass mail.
And how do I know the message was authorized? Only by the reputation
of the marketing company, many of which are completely unknown to me
before I get such a message. If I don't recognize the actual sender,
who might be just pretending to be the claimed sender, how can I
distinguish such a message from spam? I can't and I don't.
And then many of these guys also use a reply-to header. Those who don't
pay attention find replies going to the marketing company. Again, how
can I be sure that is what the claimed sender wants? I can't.
If the content of a mass mailing would tarnish your reputation, don't
send it -- through any channel. If the content is acceptable, or should
be, why do you need to use a separate MTA? Answer: Only because some
dumb folks delegate filtering to brain-dead blocklists.
--
Dave Close, Compata, Irvine CA +1 714 434 7359
[email protected] [email protected]
"Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from
acquiring the deadening effect of a habit." -- W. Somerset Maugham
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
