--- On Mon, 5/21/12, David F. Skoll <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2012 12:22:39 -0700 (PDT) [email protected] wrote: > > > Definently not. A rejected message (returned to the sender) gets > > more action (or administrative notice) than one accepted as spam > > therefore unanswered. > > Rejecting a message containing an X-Auto-Response-Suppress is not only > pointless, but it violates the RFCs, which permit any sort of X-* header.
Obviously, I was not considering that case. > Rejecting communication with Microsoft Exchange is an interesting > position to take and I sympathise on a philosophical level, but it's > tilting at windmills. Completely impractical if you actually rely on > email for business communication. 1) Not if enough people do it. 2) You still haven't said why I should accept any message which violates the standards. Malformed messages should be rejected for precisely that reason -- ALWAYS. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
