Re: LSMSGCV: Your message to curtis.star...@granburyisd.org was blocked as spam - please reply to forward it

[William Herrin]

Hi Harry,

You sent your message direct to Curtis in addition to Nanog. Looks
like his mailer acted on the direct one, not the list-relayed message.

The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
that he can help you identify and fix.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Harry Hoffman
 wrote:
> Damnit, Curtis.
>
> If your filtering mail like this then you should use a different identity for 
> your nanog traffic!
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> challe...@granburyisd.org wrote:
>
> Did you send an email to: curtis.star...@granburyisd.org from: 
> hhoff...@ip-solutions.net?
>
> If yes, it got caught as unsolicited email by our spam blocker. You can 
> release the mail from spam quarantine by simply replying to this message. At 
> the same time the spam blocker will recognize you as a trusted sender (from 
> this email address) and automatically add you to my Allow list for this and 
> any future communication.
>
>
>
> Many illegal spammers forge email addresses to try to get past spam blocking 
> software.  These spammers send hundreds of millions of spam messages a day, 
> clogging email servers and wasting people’s time.  We regret that these 
> spammers have forced us to send this message to you.
>
>
>
> Original From: hhoff...@ip-solutions.net
>
> Original To: curtis.star...@granburyisd.org
>
>
>
> LSMSGCV For more information about our spam blocking software please visit 
> www.lightspeedsystems.com
>
>
>



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: LSMSGCV: Your message to curtis.star...@granburyisd.org was blocked as spam - please reply to forward it

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
> challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
> that he can help you identify and fix.

Perhaps there is or isn't a problem with the sender's mail server,
but C/R is *never* the appropriate method for dealing with such: it's an
inherently abusive, spamming approach that was thoroughly discredited
a decade ago and should never be used.

---rsk

Re: LSMSGCV: Your message to curtis.star...@granburyisd.org was blocked as spam - please reply to forward it

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:33:18PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>> The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
>> challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
>> that he can help you identify and fix.
>
> Perhaps there is or isn't a problem with the sender's mail server,
> but C/R is *never* the appropriate method for dealing with such: it's an
> inherently abusive, spamming approach that was thoroughly discredited
> a decade ago and should never be used.

Rich,

Auto-response (including vacation messages and spam challenges) is the
pro-life/pro-choice debate of the email community. Pretty much
everybody agrees that when they respond to list traffic they're doing
the wrong thing. Beyond that the level of agreement drops off quickly.
A minority hold the belief that autoresponse is always wrong and last
I checked the RFCs still say that a message indicating
undeliverability should be sent when a mailer can't deliver a message.

At any rate, it's about as "thoroughly discredited" as the pro-choice movement.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004