At 08:23 PM 9/30/97 -0700, <wje(_at_)acm(_dot_)org> wrote:
[snip]
process(_at_)qz(_dot_)little-neck(_dot_)ny(_dot_)us (Eli the Bearded) wrote:
:There is this guy reading this list whose "From:" address mentions
:that his mail is protected by spamguard.
[snip]
: Since he has \<mail\> in
:his from header, it is getting caught by ^FROM_MAILER and his
:posts are getting filed with my bounces & what not, instead of
:with this list.
What I don't understand at this point is whether Eli considers this a
problem of his, or a problem of mine.
Neither do I. Rhetorical question to Bill, literal question to Eli: What
is the point of this rant -- is it to make you, Bill, change how you do
things to appease Eli? Eli *chooses* to receive this mailing list and your
posts are appropriate. Is your "From:" line in violation of RFC822?
Anything I'd suggest to handle the problem on his end (e.g., modify
procmail recipes to filter in the list before filtering bounces & what
not), Eli already is well aware of.
: I tried to send him amil about it, but he has
:some stupid fucking guessing game to figure out what to do.
Flamebait.
This is the first legitimate mail I've missed in about three months.
I'm not crying. In any event, I see no reason not to use the word
"mail" in lines that identify me.
Well... I don't see why that belongs in a "From:" header; it really
doesn't pertain to describing you (which is the purpose of a "From:"
header). I'd personally prefer to see that information placed say in a
"X-" header, but that's me. From my way of thinking, a "From:" header
should say who the email is "From:" and nothing (much) more than that,
rather than stating what is being used to protect one's mailbox.
: Why
:the hell he doesn't just direct all of his mail into /dev/null,
:I have no idea.
With respect, and I do respect Eli for his posts I've seen here, I think he
is over-reacting just a tad.
Eli is happy not resending the mail, and I'm happy with him not
resending it. Everybody wins.
The point is not any sort of personal duel between Eli and me. The
point is that if a whitelist user misses an occasional piece of mail
and that doesn't bother him, what is the problem with using a
whitelist?
The only reason I wrote this whole thing is to raise that question,
which is a valid one for the procmail list.
A valid question. I see no problem, but on the other hand, I do
selectively "whitelist" so my opinion is biased. I think the problem is
that it bothers certain people to "jump thru these hoops" to get email to
you and it bothers them to get autoresponses, even if they (presumably)
only have to do it once. You know it's the same type that put "Don't send
CC me stuff you send to the procmail mailing lists" in their sig :^> No
one forced them to email you, and they only get the autoresponse if they
email you.
Well, it bothered me that I'd get 5+ UCEs a day and blacklisting was too
much work with these idiots constantly forging headers to evade the
filters, so now I "selectively" whitelist.
*shrug*
Oh, and RE:
This is the first legitimate mail I've missed in about three months.
I'm not crying.
I'll take that over having my mailbox innundated with spam and/or daily
editing procmail "blacklist" recipes -- anyday. YMMV.
Lates!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim <bodysurf(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com>
mailto:bodysurf(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com
Finger bodysurf(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com for my PGP public key (Bits 1024/KeyID
09DA5C49).
PGP Key FPrint (09/03/94): 4C 97 F1 FA 70 55 68 91 49 D1 AD F2 DD 63 0C 15
---------------------> Please PGP encrypt your email <---------------------