At 09:59 AM 8/21/2004 +0200, you wrote:
--On Samstag, August 21, 2004 14:54:37 +0800 AccuSpam
<support(_at_)accuspam(_dot_)com> wrote:
[...]
The auto-response has to be sent if list is not whitelisted, otherwise a
spammer could mimick list headers to forged senders or non-existent
address.
Sending auto responses to a list owner address will get your server
blocked by the list admin on most mailing lists very quickly. Sending
them them to the mail author will take longer but lead to the same
result due to complaints about this misbehaviuor.
Just do not send auto responses for list mails. Ask yourself why all
respectable auto responder software has (sometimes quite extensive)
filters to avoid exactly this misbehaviour.
Yes but as I wrote already, an anti-spam system that uses responses can not do
this because as I said the spammer could mimick a list to escape the anti-spam
response mechanism.
Thus the only answer is for lists to declare a null address they want
auto-responses sent to. If they did that, then you wouldn't need complicate
heuristics and you wouldn't see posts like this on this list:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/0493.html
Again I conclude the problem is with the list programming, not AccuSpam. It is
unfortunate for lists who have this bug and do not want to fix, but that is
your right. You can blacklist your own members if you like.
I would *LOVE* to fix if it was my bug. Sorry. I was correct from beginning.
Sincerely, thanks for info to confirm it.
I know that you hate to admit the list has a bug, but that auto-response above
was not generated by AccuSpam. The list is coded wrong.
I know you will not agree. So bet it.
Thanks,
Shelby