I have to disagree with your disagreeing, Dan. There may be good reasons
in general for not setting up a list to return bounce messages to the
sender, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an option. The fact
that you wouldn't like such an option or wouldn't find it useful doesn't
mean that someone else might have a different situation or set of
preferences as far as what they're willing to deal with.
I manage a number of small, closed lists, and the *only* bounces I get are
from legitimate members mailing from non-listed mail accounts. It would
be much more convenient for my application if the sender knew their post
didn't go through as close to immediately as possible, so they could
re-send from an approved account. I have
restrict-post: folks folks.alias
and I'll add their "alias" e-mail addresses to allow them to post without
recieving multiple copies - but until then, their message may sit in limbo
until I check the "bounce" account. And they won't know it - they'll
thgink their message wnet through ok, even though it doesn't appear in
their in-box.
I also am not sold on the "helping spammers" argument. A spammer tries to
send to one of my lists (which in reality doesn't happen), and gets a
bounce notification. How does that make their life easier? They either
actually remove my list address from their spam list, in which case
they're doing extra work *and* I'm off their list, or they either ignore
it or take it as validation that the address works, which effectively
doesn't differ from no response at all - I stay on their spam list either
way.
So, yes, it would be nice to be able to send bounce messages back to the
sender. I'll accept that it shouldn't be the default configuration; but
when it comes down to it, you shold be able to configure your lists in a
manner that best serves your needs, and I should be able to configure mine
to best serve my needs.
Sendmail tells you that promiscuous relaying is a bad idea. But the
option to use it is available.
Linux tells you that allowing telnet logins as root is a bad idea. But
the option to do that is available.
Why can't majordomo tell me that sending bounce messages back to the
sender isn't recommended, and why - but make the option available?
On Sat, 20 May 2000, Dan Liston wrote:
> I have to disagree with you there Mike. It would not be nice to have.
> Spammers have always infested the internet, but why make it easier for
> them by letting them know they did not reach their intended audience.
>
> As a list owner, moderator, and majordomo administrator, I would much
> rather be the only one to suffer the hit of the spam than have it get
> into the entire list population.
>
> Returning non-member bounces automatically rather than letting the owner
> deal with the message is just begging for trouble. Leaving the bounce
> mechanism as-is, allows non-member submissions to be scanned and dealt
> with by humans for humans.
>
> Dan Liston
>
> mjn wrote:
> >
> > Is there any way to get non-member submissions to bounce to the person who
> > attempted to post the message (and not just the owner of the list)? I am
> > not sure if it is possible but it'd be nice if it were...
>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
