I got an embarrased message from the member about their IT department. I
don't want to pick them in particular. This type of thing is all to
frequent--and they are in no way unique or even very far from ordinary.
This particular one just happened to come at the wrong time. That said,
more inline.
On 16 Feb 2004, Franck Martin wrote:
I like it when it says you use offensive and harrassive language... ietf
must be a swear, then...
;)
;-) Yes, it must be that.
anti-spam systems are like e-mail systems, they need to be set properly.
That's all. They are not idiotic or ill-conceived, they are miss-used...
I'd suppose that the "known spamming language" was the references to
viagra. Many years ago, AOL banned the use of the term "breast", and
created a stir because breast-cancer support groups were using AOL, and
were shut down. Filter-writers have to know that there are no bad terms,
and that filters can't be overly simplistic. But then, spammers can get
around filters, and they require constant maintenance.
Who knows what is bad about "personal content", though, maybe this
system isn't for personal use. But then who knows what about my message
was overly personal...
I am stumped as to what may have been offensive/harrassing language,
but 'ietf' is as good a guess as any.
Likewise, what about it had "junk mail/chain letter characteristics"
also leaves me stumped.
These error messages are unintelligible, and the tests probably just
extra-ordinarily simplistic. You are right, that is just miss-use of what
is probably system configuration. The site operator no doubt could rectify
all of these things, and no doubt will, after some amount of non-spam mail
is lost, or they are embarrassed on the IETF list. (sorry)
However, sending a "bounce message" to what you _think_ might be a spam
from: address is just a way for abusers to conduct abuse and mailbomb
people. When abusers want to mailbomb an address, they just send a bunch
of garbage to a site like this, with the target's address as the from:
address. The target gets mailbombed, and cannot block the site that is
being used. That's how they make things worse. This is why these responder
systems are idiotic and ill-conceived.
What's always amazing to me is the absolute certainty and zeal that people
have that overly simple tests work. One should mark things you _think_
might be spam, as spam, and deliver them, or discard them. One should not
create a mailbombing system. Self/foot/trigger.
--Dean