On 2017/11/21 6:30 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
//...
I consider that there is no such thing as a "false positive". Either the sending MTA is
a properly configured RFC compliant Internet host with a properly configured MTA, or I do not want
to accept communications from it. If it is properly configured *AND* it is not on any of the
blacklists that I use (only some of which are spam related -- as I said there is a huge cross-over
between dirty spammers and dirty crackers) then I will accept the message. Otherwise, not only do
they not get to send messages, they will likely be "administratively prohibited" from
communicating at all on any port for any reason whatsoever. And that is THEIR problem to address,
not mine.
Just as there is a modern propensity for the re-labelling of "impersonation" as "identity theft" in
order to lay blame and inconvenience on the person impersonated instead of where it belongs (as a natural consequence
of the law) on the "impersonator" and the relying party who made the "mistake", pretending that the
recipient is somehow required to receive, read and obey whatever some idiot sends is an inversion of the natural order
of things and is delusional (on the part of both parties).
//...
For best effect, read the above with a German accent while holding your
right hand straight forward and pointing slightly up in front of you.
_______________________________________________
sqlite-users mailing list
sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
