On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Jay Maynard wrote: > 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. > > 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.
And you give them a delivery confirmation (in case of a correct return address) or create extra "undelivered" loop, in case of an invalid address. Either way: not a good idea if you assume this is spam. > > 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 > 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. > Some smart mailers (like mutt and pine ;-) ) use ASCII if the message does not contain any non-ASCII chars. I'm not sure about mozilla. But I think it doesn't. Anyway, I believe that non of the MS mailers do. So if you want to use the same mailer for both (say) chineese and linux-s390, you'll get messages to linux-s390 in a charset which is a superset of ASCII. This is true also for ISO-8859-1/windows-1252 , but I don't see anybody complaining ... -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
