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:
I disagree. The 'correct' answer is that if you use an auto-response
(or other challenge) system then you *MUST* whitelist the mailing
lists to which you subscribe.
Oh I agree with that and had already written that much earlier:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/0771.html
"If I whitelist the people on the list, they never see my auto-response..."
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/0703.html
But apparently that does not satisfy Mark's spin on our auto-response:
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200408/0763.html
"Probing mailing lists for deliverable addresses is a confessed
spam-technique; it is a very big no-no! Man, are you suicidal? :)"
So if we want to fix Mark's complaint, then either AccuSpam and auto-responses
have to cease entirely (what Mark advises) or the list has to give
auto-responses a null address to reply to.
I am trying to make you all happy, but you all do not agree on what I should
do. Closing AccuSpam or not generating auto-responses that users have
requested is not an option.
I think whitelisting is the best compromise but realize Mark will continue to
criticize.
Thanks,
Shelby