On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:15:40 -0600 Jay Maynard said: >On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:52:40AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 08:02:46AM -0600, Jay Maynard wrote: >> > ...because my mailer rejects any messages with a character set of BIG5, >> > EUC-KR, or KS_C_5601-1987. I got three of those in the past few days. >> The right thing to do is to accept these messages and discard them, rather >> than returning an error. That way you don't get unsubscribed from anything, >> and you also don't generate a lot of unhelpful additional traffic for >> postmasters around the world (spam generally does not have a useful return >> address). > >I don't generate bounces; I reject them during the SMTP transaction.
with what reason code? 55x? > >I do not believe that silently discarding spam is a Good Idea. It's nothing >more than automation of hitting the delete key, which does nothing to solve >the spam problem. > >I can whitelist the linux-390 mailing list...but how many folks here can >handle those character sets? Displaying them as ASCII is no answer, as it I was actually surprised by the comment, since I didn't remember any of those coming through. I went and checked, and there were 2 EUC-KR this month, both of them were entirely Roman characters, which is why I didn't notice. Once or twice a week spam does get caught because of non-subscribers posting that are in a Korean character set, but that wasn't these. >shows up as unreadable garbage. I would argue that sending traffic in a >character set that almost nobody can display properly is just plain being >unneighborly, not to mention drastically reducing one's chances of getting >the answers one seeks. /ahw
