Pascal Hakim writes ("Re: (forw) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Posting on the list [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output]]"): > Luckily for you, murphy leaves in the headers both the old > envelope-sender, and the host it received the email from.
This is true, but not helpful in this particular case. But I don't think this conversation is really about the technical details of spamfiltering. > You're already ignoring emails from people who want to contact the > tech-ctte, what difference does it make if you simply drop their > emails at your MTA? No, we are _not_ _ignoring_ those emails. They are _bouncing_ with an explanation, back to the sender, who has the opportunity to jump through (admittedly annoying) technical hoops. This is quite different from simply junking the mail. In particular, the behaviour with false positives is quite different. I think it's worth _bouncing_ quite a few mails to avoid a smaller number of (other) mails erroneously _disappearing_. A lost mail is much worse than a spurious bounce. I'm not sure how much worse, but I'd guess for mails to the TC a factor of 10 wouldn't be unreasonable. It's difficult to put an exact number on it because the actual behaviour not independent for different messages from the same sender. > How do the other people in the committee feel about this issue? I would like to hear from them too. So far Bdale has said little other than that he doesn't want me to host the list, and I'll take that as a veto. Raul says (if I understand him properly) that he would probably be happy to unmoderate the list, but doesn't seem to advocate doing so. Ian.