On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:40:56PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What "blindly"? As far as I can tell, any autoreponse to spam puts
> you at risk from spamcop, no matter how much care you put into inbound
> filtering.
As does operating any mailing list or website. From my personal
experienc
Ian Eiloart writes:
> This can be useful if enabled for specific domains - for example, we'd use
> it for our own domain. However, if you blindly respond to spam with
> confirmation messages, you'll be generating collateral spam. That'll
> already get you blacklisted with spamcop.
What "bl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 6, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Ian Eiloart wrote:
> This can be useful if enabled for specific domains - for example,
> we'd use
> it for our own domain. However, if you blindly respond to spam with
> confirmation messages, you'll be generating collate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 5, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
> Having it on by default might be seen as a "back door" to some, but
> off
> by default means people would have to see the benefits of turning
> it on
> before they'd do so. Since signed mails are
Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I couldn't find it in
the archives. I'm interested in replacing the logon screen for the list
with one that asks for the email address and password for the user,
checks if they are an owner or moderator, then if so, checks to see if
they can b
--On 4 November 2006 13:32:13 -0500 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given that this could be a posting option that list admins could
> choose or not, I'm all for it. I'd like to augment the "who can post
> to this list" options with at least one other workflow: self-
> verification.
