Seth Breidbart <sethb(_at_)panix(_dot_)com> wrote:
Your inability to determine that the usage was legitimate does not
affect its legitimacy, although it can affect your behavior.
If my MTA can't tell it's legitimate, then I don't really care about
statements you make on a mailing list claiming that such messages are
legitimate. Those statements are irrelevant, unimportant, and
completely pointless.
To re-iterate: I'm interested in what information MTA's can use, and
what decisions they can come to. Theoretical issues of legitimacy are
a waste of time.
You're stuck on the idea that I've somehow labelled your messages
illegitimate, and you feel bad that I've made a value judgement about
your mail. I haven't. I've explained why I haven't. Get over it.
I've labelled those messages as "my MTA can't tell they're
legitimate", and I don't really care about your opinion, unless you're
willing to publish your opinions in a form my MTA can use. Get it?
I believe that only the recipient's criteria for _determining what to
do_ matter in _what the recipient does_. That does NOT affect whether
or not a message _actually is_ spam.
To quote someone else: That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
You're interested in philosophical discussions, and steadfastly
refuse to address the only issue: what information is available in the
network.
MTA's don't read mailing lists. Nothing else is relevant.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg