RBL checks and Spamcop

Peter HOLZLEITNER P.Holzleitner at UNIDO.ORG
Thu Nov 28 10:44:28 GMT 2002


there's nothing wrong with your definition.  Many of us however
work in places where management follows a different definition.


-----Original Message-----
From: dave at ESI.COM.AU [mailto:dave at ESI.COM.AU]
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: RBL checks and Spamcop

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Paul Welsh wrote:

> Is anyone here using SpamCop's blocking list?  If so, is it reasonable
> assume that I could quarantine all mail that gets into SpamCop's list,
> rather than accepting MailScanner's default of prefixing the Subject
> {SPAM?}?  If so, it would be helpful to my users and worth donating.

I reject any mail that Spamcop deems unacceptable.  There is nothing
sacred about email whatsoever; it is merely one more medium.

There is always the telephone, fax, courier, letter, eyeball, DX, telex,
pigeon, encrypted broadcast/multicast etc, and that was without even
thinking hard.

Serious question: why the hell is email regarded as being sacred on this
mailing list, and not upon other anti-spam related lists?

I mean, would you entrust your business-critical life-saving
missive to someone who will try and pass it on to someone else, who
in turn think about passing it on to someone else etc?  And all of whom
have had the opportunity to intercept and inspect said message?  No?

What, exactly, is so bloody special about email, that it *must* arrive?

Exasperated, I remain,

-- Dave

More information about the MailScanner mailing list