I put a rule in my mail filter that automatically bounces
anything from him and does not let it through.
Is that unethical or wrong?
Just curious.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of David
Woodhouse
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 9:09 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: RE: [spf-discuss] Paul G. Pierson
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 08:37 -0500, Brad Glore wrote:
This auto reply for Mr. Pierson is annoying.
Anyone doing anything fun or creative in response?
I mailed the abuse address at what appears to be the upstream network
provider, reporting mail abuse from 158.81.14.31
(mlrly01.centerpointenergy.com) which is violently misconfigured and
connected through their network. I recommended that they disconnect the
offending machine from the network immediately until such time as it is
fixed.
Automatic replies to anywhere but the MAIL FROM address, and bearing any
MAIL FROM address other than '<>' as a bounce should have, are a mail
loop waiting to happen. Except this one, which is a mail loop _actually_
happening :)
We really ought to have an 'autoreply.rfc-ignorant.org' RBL.
--
dwmw2
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Read the whitepaper! http://spf.pobox.com/whitepaper.pdf
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com