I think for SPAM this is probably good because if it isn't SPAM, the headers weren't forged and it may be nice to know that someone didn't get the message. For instance, say you were sending some fairly important message and you know that RR was disabled on their mail system, you would have to assume they got it or worse, call them to ask if they got it - "Yeah... I just sent you an email, did you get it... derrr".
For AV stuff, yes, I absolutely agree, do not send messages back saying the message I sent had a virus. I hate that because I know I didn't send a message with a virus but some numbskull who happens to have my email address in their contacts sent it. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Harris Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:28 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Setting spam filters to send a reply is, IMHO, totally irresponsible, since the From: headers on spam are ALWAYS forged. The admins at these organizations then complain about getting listed on RBLs, because they are effectively relaying spam. Sorry about the soapbox speech -- just a bit of a pet peeve... -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:19 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] [OT] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important LOL. The previously attached EML kicked off even more SPAM filters, 11 at last count. That just cracks me right up. A society in fear of SPAM and viruses.... -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:35 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: FW: RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Looks like MCMATHLAW.COM has their SPAM filter (MDaemon) set a little on the sensitive side.... I would hate to be behind that filter, can't imagine how much mail they are missing. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important MDaemon has identified your message as spam. It will not be delivered. >From : [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : <SOMERANDOMPERSON>@mcmathlaw.com Subject : RE: [ActiveDir] Group Name (Pre-Win2k) - Is it important Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes, score=3.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_60,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=3.1.0 *** * 0.1 HTML_50_60 BODY: Message is 50% to 60% HTML * 3.0 BAYES_60 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 60 to 80% * [score: 0.6164] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message : Message contains [1] file attachments List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
