From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
First, I'd like to thank you for your efforts at proxies.relays.monkeys.com that was one of my prefered RBLs until it went offline, very professional job. I use opm.blitzed.org now, but it's not near as good.
1) It uses "Precedence: bulk" instead of "Precedence: junk", thus
flaunting and ignoring the PRE-EXISTING and well-established
conventions used by 80% of the world's other software packages
that automatically generate one-shot automated e-mail responses.
Well, rfc 2076 seems to disagree with you:
Precedence: Non-standard, controversial, discouraged.
However, that rfc itself is somewhat controversial so it's not the end of the story. What it`s actually
often used for is a way of identifying whether an e-mail message was either automatically generated (Precedence: junk) or from a mailing list (Precedence: bulk) so that any automated responders, command processors (like a list subscription address), or similar automated e-mail robots can
ignore any such messages. This would lend credence to your argument that it should be labeled as Junk. However, in my opinion, challenges should have a higher precendence than vacation auto-responders, and due to the fact of rampant spam, lots of people filter Precedence: Junk. (although this is a broken method, we have to live with it's existence) Perhaps what we need is a new header Precedence: Challenge What do you think?
2) It fails to include the Message-ID: of the message that it is a
response to, either in an In-Reply-To: header or in a References:
header.
Hmm, wasn't aware of that, that sounds like a relevant complaint especially for people with threaded email readers.
3) Last and worst, this message was sent using a null envelope sender
address (represented here by "MAILER-DAEMON" which is how my own
local mail server interprets and re-writes null envelope sender
address).
That's actually configurable, and not recommended in the setup instructions. Use bounce_env_sender to set this value, personally I use a ten day dated address for this.
Because TMDA automated response messages fail to follow well-established existing practice, not in one, or tow, but in ALL THREE of the different ways noted above, those messages, unlike automated response messages from other and more well crafted software, will NOT make it past either my filter, or other intelligent junk filters that make some attempt to allow in legitimate automated response messages.
Well personally I'd say that means your filters aren't descriminating enough, unless of course you feel that the entire concept of challenges is spammy, as some of the anti-C/R zeolots I've talked to do.
Chris Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator JM Associates & Coast Business Service
"When your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails." --Mark Twain
_________________________________________________________________
Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
_____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
