Kai MacTane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Text written by Len Budney at 05:07 PM 1/27/99 -0500: Does any
> >non-spammer routinely include >25 (or even >5) BCC's in a message?
> >The only exception I can think of is corporate email, which, of
> >course, is immune to such rules since the corporate mail server can
> >handle them appropriately.
>
> Yes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), among
> many other organizations, has a mass mailing list...
Oops, you're correct. I was ignoring real mailing lists because I had
something special in mind for them--which I then forget to specify.
To achieve the Spam-Free World of Tomorrow (tm), majordomo must be
outlawed. The only permitted mailing list managers will be
qmail/ezmlm, and any other manager which implements VERPs. Hence, they
will already be towing the mark of "one envelope recipient per email".
Further, so that such mails aren't dropped by "BCC filters", a header
must always be introduced which includes the recipient address. I
suggest "Resent-to".
> Just because spammers use the Bcc: field doesn't make all use of it evil.
> After all, spammers use the Internet, too.
Though you are correct, it doesn't matter. No price is too high to
stop filthy spammers. Collateral damage is a fortune of war. Wear a
flak-jacket if you're frightened.
Len.
--
A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over
them. --Proverbs 20:26
