When I wrote,
> Having never run a list with an essential business purpose, ...
| Essential business is in the eye of the beholder.
Of course. I meant that my lists have not been business-related for the
majority of members; rather, they've been discussion lists for leisure inte-
rests. In each case, some people joined whose businesses did include the
| I've banned a few sites over time; almost always because their software
| is braindamaged to the point of being dangerous to my lists ...
Of all the sites I had to ban, only one was for reasons other than hostile
email practices. That company had given me unending personal aggravation
and I finally decided that I was putting a lot of effort into administering
and moderating the list in question and I was damned if I'd add value to
their service by providing its email accounts with the benefit of my work.
I gave the five or six subscribers in its domains thirty days to send me
new addresses; one replied immediately, saying that she was just about to
notify me that she was changing ISPs anyway. The others never responded,
nor did any of them say a word when their subscriptions vanished a month
> I wouldn't be surprised if many articles from mailing lists are rejected be-
> cause the listserver's sending IP address in the SMTP transaction doesn't
> match the author's domain in the RFC822 From: line and therefore is assumed
> to be relayed spam. That's an absolutely ridiculous way to run a site, but
> there's no telling what's out there.
| but it's a good reminder to sweat the details, and not give them any
| reason to reject stuff. You never know what stupid things people will
| come up with, so try to avoid doing stupid things... (grin)
I don't see how your comment relates to mine, Chuq. On a discussion list,
do you consider keeping the poster's address in the RFC822 From: header,
thus having a domain there that doesn't match the IP address of the SMTP
transaction when a copy is delivered to a member, a stupid thing to do that
the list administrator should have avoided? I consider it a stupid thing
for the member's site to reject the message for such a reason.