At 6:02 PM -0600 4/6/03, Vernon Schryver wrote:
] >However, I think it would be a bit better if a very few high volume
] >posters such as yourself would start adding either In-Reply-To or
] >References headers just like the vast majority of posters do.
]
] Sure, everyone can just run right out and patch the binary.
Who needs to patch which binaries? I use an older than ancient MUA that
Anyone running a commercial MUA that doesn't generate In-Reply-To or
References headers. But this was a pointless argument. I just found
it strange that someone was criticizing a mail-user for not
generating those headers. It's the MUAs responsibility, not the
users. And since both are recommendations, even that's putting it
too strongly.
(One of my best filters for bulk mail is the lack of the a Message-ID
line, and the only noticable false positives involve qmail.)
It's definitely an indicator (our system works almost entirely by
looking at hints like that). But if qmail is your only false
positive then you need to sign up for a few more commercial mailing
lists. It's *way* too common with commercially generated email.
Esp. customer support systems, automated sales notifications and the
like. The folks who write those things clearly don't read the RFCs.
(And don't get me started on this new trend towards parsing email
addresses with javascript to see if they are "valid".)
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.messagefire.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg