--On 6 February 2009 17:27:33 +0000 Jethro R Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ian Eiloart wrote: > >> --On 6 February 2009 14:50:19 +0000 Jethro R Binks >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > (Although, the same argument is useable here as against greylisting >> > and other techniques: once a critical mass of receiving servers >> > implement these techniques, it will be worth the while of spammers to >> > accomodate them, play by the rules, design better SMTP engines, in >> > order to get their mail past the techniques. But I think we're a long >> > way to go yet, and there's probably a huge legacy of crap spammy SMTP >> > clients out there that are easily defeatable.). >> >> Yes, but this isn't just about spam. It's also about not accepting >> emails with malformed address headers. Those addresses aren't just there >> to look pretty, they're used by MUAs and even MTAs to address replies. >> If the From:, To: or Cc: header is malformed, then the replies may also >> be malformed, or misdirected. > > You and I know that it's not just about spam, but sometimes you have to > stretch the truth a little in order to get the point across. > > Fact is, I fundamentally believe that we should absolutely not accept any > mail that absolutely does not conform to the required standards. No > point having standards if you don't stand up for them. Unfortunately, > that belief is a bit too fundamental for most of my user's tastes. So I > grant a little bit of slack and leeway, and don't act quite so strictly > (while reserving my right to do so at another time), and for the > remaining fundamentalism, I have to present it in ways that end users > find easier to understand -- it has to be applied rather than > theoretical fundamentalism. Easiest way to do that is to use concepts > like "protection", and the easiest 'bad guys' to explain about, that all > end users understand, are the spammers. Then they can relate to my > actions better. > > So, yes, sometimes I am a little loose in the language I use or the > explanations I give, but deliberately so. Sometimes, anyway. Sometimes > I just can't help but tell them the ugly truth: that the expensive email > product they are using is just plain downright broken, and they should > return it to the vendor as unfit for purpose :) I prefer to be honest with my users. Mostly because I find it hard enough to remember one version of the truth, never mind several! > Jethro. > > -- > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Jethro R Binks > Computing Officer, IT Services, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
