On Fri, 3 May 2002 00:43, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:57:54PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > If you're in contact with any senior people at these companies suggest > > to them that they use different mail servers (with different IP > > addresses for outgoing traffic) for different purposes. Then when > > their advertising server is listed as a spam source their corporate > > server will still be usable. > > what are you doing, russell? you're giving a free clue to mainsleaze > spammers. > > bad!!! > > the *only* thing that is going to stop these scum from spamming is if > they realise it will damage their ability to communicate.
I agree that we have to hurt spammers to make them stop, and I also admit that my previous message could help some spammers. However I believe that my suggestion is much more useful in helping legitimate businesses avoid getting mistakenly listed as spammers. There have been quite a few times that I have dealt with legit companies to find that their servers were listed in spam lists, in several of those cases I knew that the companies had good anti-spam policies and that the reports were therefore mistaken. So the fact that they had one server doing both regular email and the opt-in advertising mailing list hurt them (and me). > > This is a simple chance but can save huge amounts of pain for everyone > > concerned. > > unfortunately, pain is a neccessary part of the cure for this disease. Not pain for innocent people though. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]