[155910] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: LSMSGCV: Your message to curtis.starnes@granburyisd.org was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Aug 30 08:52:52 2012
In-Reply-To: <20120830102409.GA19406@gsp.org>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:51:38 -0400
To: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>> The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
>> challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
>> that he can help you identify and fix.
>
> Perhaps there is or isn't a problem with the sender's mail server,
> but C/R is *never* the appropriate method for dealing with such: it's an
> inherently abusive, spamming approach that was thoroughly discredited
> a decade ago and should never be used.
Rich,
Auto-response (including vacation messages and spam challenges) is the
pro-life/pro-choice debate of the email community. Pretty much
everybody agrees that when they respond to list traffic they're doing
the wrong thing. Beyond that the level of agreement drops off quickly.
A minority hold the belief that autoresponse is always wrong and last
I checked the RFCs still say that a message indicating
undeliverability should be sent when a mailer can't deliver a message.
At any rate, it's about as "thoroughly discredited" as the pro-choice movement.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
