Dnia 10.10.2019 o godz. 09:42:34 Paul Smith via mailop pisze: > > Nowadays, you'd be daft to accept mail from anywhere unless the > sender 'proves' to be nasty. Generally, you'll find it more likely > to work the other way. If you're an unknown sender, you're likely to > be filtered until you're proven to be good.
That makes sense if you keep your e-mail address secret and give it to friends, relatives, coworkers etc. only, and only expect messages from them. In that case you could just delete or reject messages from everyone else and it won't be strange. However, if you announce your e-mail address publicly, by eg. putting it on a website as your contact address, or participating in a mailing list like this one using this address, you are actually inviting people to contact you at this address. So you should ensure that you *can* be contacted by pretty much everyone. Of course, it's not an invitation to send you actual spam; but distrusting some senders just because they *can* *potentially* *in your opinion* be spammers, while you have on the other hand actually *invited* them to send you mail (legitimate mail, not spams)... that just doesn't go with each other. > This is especially the > case if you're using a TLD or network with a bad reputation. In that > case, simply by using those low-rep things, you are broadcasting > that you're *likely* to be bad. It's the same as walking into a war > zone wearing the enemy's uniform. You may not be the enemy, but > you're very likely to be, so don't be surprised if you get shot. But we are not on war. The fact that there are criminals on the Internet doesn't make it a "war zone", similarly as the fact that you can meet a criminal in everyday life doesn't make the whole life a "war zone". Internet is tool for communications, not for fighting. If we start treating it as a "war zone", and just blindly reject or delete (as putting a message in spam folder practically equals deletion to an average user) messages just based on our *assumptions* towards the senders (as "reputation" is nothing more than an *assumption*, especially if it refers not to a particular sender, but to whole netblock), we might just as well start to shut the whole Internet down. I wouldn't dare to decide who harms the communication and cooperation in the Internet more - a spammer or someone who just blindly refuses to accept messages based on *very broad* assumptions that a sender *may* be spammer (despite the fact that he/she actually *isn't*). To me, both are equally bad members of the community. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa r...@rafa.eu.org -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub." _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
