Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:34:02 +0100 (BST)
From: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
To: Dave Sill <de5@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
cc: ietf@ietf.org, drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Asinine anti-spam mechanisms
In-Reply-To: <14176.64011.350217.45003@sws5.ctd.ornl.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.02.9906111419500.7249-100000@petra.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: speaking for none
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Dave Sill wrote:

> Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:
> >
> >ps.  While one is discussing peculiar ways to run mail systems, it might be 
> >worth noting that a peculiar way to participate in open discussions is to 
> >have your SMTP server reject (bounce, i.e., return) mail from one or 
> >another of the participants.
> 
> That *would* be peculiar if Dan did that, but he doesn't. If a message
> is sent both to a list he's on *and* directly to him, he bounces the
> copy that was sent directly. I, too, find it annoying to receive
> multiple copies of messages unnecessarily.

I find it interesting that Dan bounces the direct copies, while only
accepting the possibly-delayed copies which go through someone else's
listserver he grumbles about.

Using the quicker-to-arrive (usually direct) copies and silently
discarding the later-to-arrive (usually listserver) copies as
duplicates (based on message-ID) strikes me as the preferable strategy
leading to more robust and timely mail for the user, but then I don't
have an agenda.

> I've just been too lazy to
> implement Dan's approach. Some people complain about problems, others
> fix them.

and some people fix what they see as problems just to give them an
opportunity to complain about other things they see as problems.

L.

has always been amazed by qmail's _polite_ messages. Who wrote those?

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>