On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Michael Geier wrote:
[... original message elided by poster ...]
> Maybe some people are taking my recommendation a little to strongly.
>
> In answer to your points:
> [1]If you belong to a list that does it, put them in your whitelist (in my
> opinion, any list you belong to should be in a whitelist anyway).
That's all nice and all, except that the main reason I use spamassassin
is to get rid of spam that comes via mailing lists, which is the main
way /I/ get spam. If you don't, that's nice. :)
> [2] I frankly don't understand the point of that one...
What, that marking messages as spam for people who can't get the replies
any other way? That's a little harsh.
I have worked in several situations where I /was/ one of these people,
and where various people and systems who assumed that the "Reply-To"
header was meaningless prevented me seeing any response...
> [3] If people need control over where the replies are sent, is it
> impossible to have the original message sent from the same domain?
Yes. It's impossible for me to make the addresses, say,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, be at the same domain.
> Whoever heard of a mail server you could retrieve from, but couldn't
> send from,
I have, and that's half the point of the objection. I know people who
need this and use it daily, and I have worked in that situation.
> or at least that SMTP and POP3/IMAP weren't in the same domain?
I often send mail from one domain, through an SMTP server there, and
access email delivered to another. Really.
Daniel
--
The world would be a better place if Larry Wall had been born in
Iceland, or any other country where the native language actually
has syntax.
-- Peter da Silva
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
