From: Aaron J. Grier Date: 22:37 on 24 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Misconfigured anti-spam software On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 07:35:51AM -0800, Ann Barcomb wrote: > And, if mail is only unsolicited, why reply, since the address is > probably forged? Just delete it. on a related note, one of my lusers has a whitelist program  which sends an autoreply to EVERY message he gets asking them to go to a web site and type in a magic number (à la yahoo) to be added to his whitelist. this wouldn't piss me off so much except he's hesitant to let me trash anything with a high spamassassin score, and thus consistently has 60+ messages pending to bogus addresses in the outbound mail queue on any given night. aww fsck it. I'm doing it anyway. he'll never notice.  Choicemail: http://www.digiportal.com/ . ironically their newsletters are sent from blacklisted netblocks and contain enough goofy HTML to trip spamassassin.
From: Gavin Estey Date: 03:56 on 25 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Misconfigured anti-spam software On Dec 24, 2003, at 5:37 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote: > on a related note, one of my lusers has a whitelist program  which > sends an autoreply to EVERY message he gets asking them to go to a web > site and type in a magic number (=E0 la yahoo) to be added to his > whitelist. > I have a solution to these people. I've been putting domains of these=20 services in my blacklist because most of the messages I get are=20 authentication requests for ones I didn't send or the person is an=20 idiot. Gavin.
From: David Cantrell Date: 13:05 on 29 Dec 2003 Subject: Re: Misconfigured anti-spam software Aaron J. Grier wrote: > on a related note, one of my lusers [behaves like an arse] If he is one of *your* lusers as opposed to one of your employer's lusers, why is this a problem? Your system, your rules.
Generated at 17:46 on 21 Sep 2006 by mariachi