UOL Anti spam is back, again...

[Tim]

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:05 -0800, jdow wrote:
> You have an "ignored_mailbox" and I have "/dev/null". It's the same
> thing, really. And that is the canonical way to handle stupidity that
> is willfull and repetitive. There is no way on this silly planet in
> this silly planetary system in this silly galaxy in this silly
> universe that I will answer one of those challenges. It may be a
> "silly principle"; but, it is no sillier than your "ignored_mailbox",
> is it?

I don't disagree with not paying attention to spam, so long as it's done
with care.  That's why I do what I've done, and haven't argued against
some things in this thread.  My ignored mailbox will be full, and
anybody paying attention to returned mail will find out why it's being
returned.  Or else, yahoo will have suspended the account and they
should find that out, too.  I have no desire for private mail from a
public list (typically such things are by mistake, or because someone
wants to behave in a manner that wouldn't be tolerated in public), and
anybody reading my messages on here can read the signature line
explaining it, but if they really need a private message they can ask me
to e-mail them (i.e. I am not uncontactable).  I treat this mailing list
rather like a news group.

I do agree with the sentiment that handling this *ought* to be done
properly at an SMTP server, though.  By properly, that means rejected
with an appropriate error.  This is not responding to the message, this
isn't even throwing it back, it's not accepting it and saying why (with
an error message that ought to put an end to it if the culprit is
running a properly set up SMTP server).  And doing so, that way, does it
before it gets into your inbox, and clogs it up.

Two big problems with bouncing back spam, and even rejecting mail from a
entire domain, are:

1. You can end up spamming, yourself, because your system responds in an
inappropriate way to forged headers.

2. You reject legitimate mail.  While, now, you might think there'd
never be a day that you'll receive a message from that place, you don't
really know.  I liken this to the lunacy that some people reject all
hotmail messages.  Like it, or not, some friends will use it, and are
not going to change their address for you.

However, it appears, by discussions in this thread, that this particular
problem responds in a manner that is specific to their anti-spam system.
So it would be possible to (personally) allow through messages from that
ISP, in general, and be able to automatically reject notices from their
anti-spam service.  i.e. A suitable "not accepted" SMTP error code along
with a human understandable explanation saying that idiotically flawed
anti-spam techniques will not pass through your system.

-- 
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.