Sorry, Gil, but I have to disagree with you here. I have no say over the spam/porn/naughty word filter in use here, nor do I know whether or not the filter sent a nasty-gram back to Darren or if the filter simply dropped the offending messages. I didn't even know there was a problem until Darren's note telling us there was. Why should I then be ostracized over something I have no control over - or even know about? It makes the most sense to send it back to the person who actually sent in the offending message. Besides, if Darren did what you suggested, IBM-MAIN would be flooded with messages asking "are there problems with IBM-MAIN because I'm not getting any messages". I don't think anybody really wants that.
Rex In a recent note, Gil said: In a recent note, Darren Evans-Young said: > Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:18:20 -0500 > > Personally, I don't care, but I am getting flooded with rejections > from all the content analyzers (Mail Marshall, etc.). If it happens > again, I will put the offender on NOPOST and forward all these > wonderful rejection notices to the offender. > I'd go the other way, and put the rejectors on NOMAIL. It's "backscatter" (Google for); and sites that backscatter spam, viruses, or other unwanted material should rightly be ostracised. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
