On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > The people who run such stupid filters misunderstand the way the > Internet works.
Maybe you should do a short research on the user of this mail handling program before saying such. > If you have to send an extra confirmation message every time you send > an email to someone you haven't communicated with before then it will > increase the number of messages required by at least 50%. That is an > unreasonable burden to place on other people. I wrote the software primarily for ezmlm mailing lists, please rethink your statement with this precondition. On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 08:47:04AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > Still too much. If someone initiates a communication, they should make > sure they can get the reply. Yes that's true. I usually do this. I'm not responsible for the Reply-To header in my message, the BTS mangled the headers and resent the message; and it still appears to be from me. I've set Mail-Followup-To correctly. I'm not interested in receiving private copies of mail in public discussions; I know where I post, and keep up with, in this case, the bug's history, and read debian-devel. I've noted that you two don't want to communicate with me, be it. On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 02:35:28PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > PS If a spam filter blocks a message about an NMU then don't complain > about not being warned... No. You receive a delivery notification, and you receive a bounce if the delivery fails. You know that your message didn't reach the recipient. On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 04:48:50PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > For reference, I will not reply to such a message, but I will consider > putting the entire domain in my spam filter if such messages continue. This is what could cause it. 'Stupid' content based spam filters delivering false positives to /dev/null. Neither the sender nor the recipient know about the delivery failure. Gerrit.
