From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
In any case, what standing do you have to comment on what mail is
rejected by other peoples SMTP servers?
Sites can reject mail to their own servers if they want to. the issue
is whether they're being misled about the criteria used by a blacklist.
If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being
misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third parties.
I think that as long as
those using blacklists get what they ask for, no outsiders have any
business commenting, and particularly not would be senders of
unsolicited bulk mail.
Apparently you also think that it's acceptable to forward mail from
people you don't like to DCC, misrepresenting it as spam. The only
reasonable response to people with this kind of attitude ends with "and
the horse you rode in on". Actually, that's being far too polite.
First, contrary to Keith Moore's the baloney, DCC clients detect bulk
mail. It is impossible to (mis)represent mail as unsolicited bulk
mail or spam by forwarding it to a DCC server. Doing so only reports
it as "bulk." Are the "courtesy" copies mailing list contributions
that Keith Moore insists on sending "bulk"? If they are private, then
forwarding them to the DCC instead of my mailbox can have no effect
because no one else will see them. If they are bulk, then some extra
reporting also has no effect; if DCC clients haven't marked them solicited
bulk by whitelisting the IETF list, they should be rejected as unsolicited
bulk mail. That's how the DCC works. So why is Keith Moore so exercised?
Consider "courtesy" copies of mailing list messages and the people who
send them. Many courtesy copies are sent unthinkingly by using a
"reply all" function, but others are intentional. The intentional
copies amount to "microphone queue jumping." Their senders they feel
their targets should see and respond to their words first. When the
IETF reflector took literally days to finish sending copies to people
at the end of alphabet like me, there might have been other reasons,
but today it finishes within several dozen minutes.
I didn't realize that "courtesy" copies are often intentional queue
jumping until I noticed that senders of "courtesy copies" tend to foam
at the mouth about the evils of MAPS, the RBL, blacklists, and spam
filtering in general. I did not notice that common thread until I
tired of "courtesy" copies of foaming flaming nonsense and started
dropping senders into my personal, non-published blacklist.
If you want to see apoplectic fits, use a sendmail access_DB instead
of procmail to for your filtering. That will spare your system a few
cycles, but it also lets senders know they're not being heard. People
who hate the RBL and DUL for impersonally filtering their earthshaking
words really hate being being personally shunned.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com