Can someone explain the following:
--Dean
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:50 -0500
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(_at_)citation(_dot_)av8(_dot_)net>
To: dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com
Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message within 5 days
The original message was received at Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:01:43 -0500
from [130.105.36.66]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<ietf-announce(_at_)ieft(_dot_)org>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<ietf-announce(_at_)ieft(_dot_)org>... Deferred: Connection refused by ieft.org.
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue
Reporting-MTA: dns; citation.av8.net
Arrival-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:01:43 -0500
Final-Recipient: RFC822; ietf-announce@ieft.org
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Remote-MTA: DNS; ieft.org
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:06:50 -0500
--- Begin Message ---
This is ridiculous. The IETF is not getting a lot of spam, so adding
SpamAssassin headers is a solution in need of a problem.
I think this kind of filtering violates the IETF charter on public
participation. SpamAssassin in particular uses many dubious and
revenge-oriented blacklists to make it determination, and labels much
non-spam mail as spam. Using SpamAssassin this way just enables these
revenge blacklists to suppress IETF mail, which is inappropriate and a
violation of IETF rules on public participation.
Furthermore, such revenge blacklisting is a group boycott in violation of
anti-trust law (see Exactis V. MAPS for a good example). Many businesses
participate in the IETF, and would be harmed by a group boycott. It would
be unlawful for the IETF to participate in an illegal group boycott which
harms legitimate business.
If individuals want to scan their IETF mail with SpamAssassin, then they
are free to choose to do that themselves.
Dean Anderson
CEO
Av8 Internet, Inc
--- End Message ---