On 1/16/05 1:14 PM, Michael J. Kobb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [regarding TMDA and similar systems] > >> The problem with this system is it punishes the good: "Prove you did nothing >> wrong". It also makes others responsible, in a way, for your spam problem: "I >> don't want to deal with it so jump through a hoop for my convenience." > > The problem with this interpretation is that it fails to acknowledge that > spam is everybody's problem. It's hardly a chore to reply once to a message > saying "I don't recognize you" to be guaranteed that all your future > messages will be delivered, compared to the strong possibility that some > sort of statistical filter will simply throw your message away and it will > never reach the person. Which one of those is more onerous?
To me, it is a chore. Whether I'll jump through the hoops depends on how important it is TO ME that the recipient receive my message. If I'm doing the recipient a favor by replying to him, then no way I'll jump through his hoops. For instance, I'm a soccer referee assignor. If I get a challenge response from someone who's come to me looking for games to work, I'll just move on to the next person and that challenge-response system just cost him a hundred dollars or so in game assignments. >> I know many mailing lists that will boot you off the list at the first sign >> of such a system, and not let you back on. And yes, it does happen, >> regularly, >> since mail from a mailing list, in non-digest mode, comes from the sender, >> not >> the list. > > If a TMDA-like system is correctly set up, it recognizes mailing list > traffic and lets the mail in. I think a list moderator who would ban > somebody for a single accidental challenge message to the list is an > irresponsible jerk. One possible "irresponsible jerk" checking in! No, I haven't banned anybody yet. In fact, with the list software I run (mailman), most likely I'll never see the response as the software will handle it automatically by considering it to be a bounce. If it's a new subscription request, the subcription confirmation chain of mail dies there and the person never ends up subscribed. If the person was already subscribed, their bounce score goes up and eventually they're unsubscribed. This all assumes the replies go to the default bounce processing address. If their software is misconfigured and replies to the sender or the list, yes, you will get banned. > Do they do the same thing if somebody sets up an > out-of-office autoreply and forgets to unsubscribe to the list? See above. If it's misconfigured and replies to the list or the sender, yes, you will get banned. If it replies to the envelope-sender, then Mailman handles it and my precious time is not taken up by it. Off topic but one thing that will absolutely, no second chances get you banned from my server is if an AOL user reports list mail as spam. I've had two such reports that I couldn't tell who did it so I now have full reply personalization set so next time, I will know who did and they will get banned (from my mail server as well as the list server). -- Larry Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stonejongleux.com/ -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
