> I don't generate bounces; I reject them during the SMTP transaction. Which ultimately generates a bounce when the sending system times out the retry interval on a completely legitimate, deliverable message. Not good for connectivity or interoperability.
> I can whitelist the linux-390 mailing list...but how many > folks here can > handle those character sets? Anyone running post-Win95 Windows can handle them if they choose to do so. Mac users can handle them. Linux users can handle them (see earlier posting for text and graphical tools that properly handle non-Roman character sets or gracefully degrade). 3270 users can handle them with MAILBOOK. At this point, I'd say a majority of users CAN handle them. What mail tool are you using that *doesn't* handle them? > Displaying them as ASCII is no > answer, as it > shows up as unreadable garbage. A lot of the time the messages are actually IN English, but the default setting in the mail tool cause them to be tagged as Chinese or Korean, thus the "display in ASCII and warn you" approach is often good enough to communicate. For the cases where the message actually IS in Chinese, how different is this to sending a English message to someone who reads only Mandarin? In both cases, you hit the delete key and move on. > 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. See above. Be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you send. Blocking messages purely on character set tagging is throwing the baby out with the bath water -- too many false positives. Using intelligently chosen RBLs is going to be more effective anyway. Ni hou, -- db
