On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Chris Drake wrote:
Earthlink sounds like they are exceptionally clued-up. A few
innocent bystanders getting inapropriate notices is a fair and
reasonable price to pay for the EXCEPTIONALLY USEFUL facility to warn
senders when emails they've sent might not get read by the intended
recipient.
Sending *replies* to virus and spam mail is *not* clued up. A DSN
I can understand (SES will block DSNs from forged envelopes).
But a *reply*? It is totally rude or else totally clueless.
It makes earthlink a spam relay - except they replace the original
spam advertisement with their own as they relay.
SPF is not widespread enough yet to adopt, and you lot still haven't
agreed on a final spec anyhow, so it's unfair to suggest Earthlink are
doing anythng except the right and honorable thing in this situation.
Haven't heard of SPF? No problem, just don't *reply* - use DSN.
Sending automated replies to unauthenticated senders is just dumb.
It's one thing for a user with a naive vacation mail to do this.
It's another for an ISP to do this as a policy - and then charge
their users for it.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.