> At that point, I lose all sympathy with them. Bounce the message, > fine. 550, no problem. Their network, their anti-spam policy. But > silent dropping is just _wrong_. In this case, I don't blame them a bit. Most of the stuff their anti-spam rules rejects is indeed spam, and if they did rejections, they'd often proxy mailbomb whatever return address was forged in the spam. (Keep in mind that lots of spam comes through open third-party relays, not direct from the spammer.) I do agree that their terms are silly, though. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
- Re:AOL Terms -- Revealed Charlie Summers
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Amy Stinson
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed JC Dill
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Alan Clegg
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed J C Lawrence
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed murr rhame
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed David W. Tamkin
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed J C Lawrence
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed murr rhame
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Roger Burton West
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed John R Levine
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed J C Lawrence
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Adam Bailey
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Adam Bailey
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed murr rhame
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Alan Clegg
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed murr rhame
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed John R Levine
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Russ Allbery
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Charlie Summers
- Re: AOL Terms -- Revealed Bernie Cosell
