[Techtalk] Over-zealous spam filtering (by Raven's ISP?)

[Whoppo]

Alright.. I sent a reply regarding this earlier today, but I think I just 
replied to James rather than the list.. so here we go again:

This thread needs to end. The "vocal subset" of this list wins. (YAY for you!)
Our spam policy sucks.. but it is OUR policy. We have tried other options and 
they are not nearly as effective as what we're doing now.. so it's just not 
likely to change..  Please get past this and continue with your lives!
I *may* even concede just a little and replace the phrase "sh*t-list" with 
something more appropriate.. but bear in mind that what I consider to be more 
appropriate is MY call..  not yours. 

As for Raven leaving the list: I don't blame her. She joined this list a LONG 
time ago to help promote T-E-C-H-N-I-C-A-L discussions.. not to be judged by 
the way we handle spam... not to be told how to admin our own systems. What 
we do with our systems is simply none of your business. This particular 
incident is not the only reason she's unsubscribed herself.. there are 
others, but she isn't about to waste everyones bandwidth with the details as 
it would probably be fruitless, and much like this thread... OFF TOPIC.

So.. is there any reason to beat this dead horse any more? Anyone?  No?  well 
good... give it a rest... please. 

We wish you all the best, and worry not, we'll be most cautious to not allow 
that "proverbial door" hit us on the way out. 

Ron
--
If you lived here, you'd be home now.


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Charlotte Oliver <COliver at casedesign.com>
To: "'techtalk at linuxchix.org'" <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
Sent: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:54:47 -0400
Subject: RE: [Techtalk] Over-zealous spam filtering (by Raven's ISP?)

> Hello all -
> 
> The issue here seems not so much to be Raven Brooke's e-mail 
> filtering methods, but the language of the reply.
> 
> Raven - I say bounce whatever you like, but it would be nice if you
> could change the message to something slightly more polite.  
> Something like:
> 
> "If you're a spammer, your mail is being blocked and reported to x.*
> Spam does this, yadda yadda.  If you are receiving this message in
> error, contact the administrators at:  <hotmail/other free address> 
> or <snail mail address>"
> 
> * x could be something so simple as an authoritative name for yourself.
> 
> Having worked for an ISP, I agree with Maria and others' posts that it's
> not very helpful to not tell the ISPs.  I've watched the abuse
> departments work and for the most part, they are overworked and can't
> keep up with the sheer quantity of spam that is being reported by their
> users.  Spammers outnumber them greatly and a spamrun can be very
> difficult to stop.  They also have the additional burden of having 
> to be fair to their users and sure not to cancel innocent customers 
> or customers who didn't realize that spam is a problem (like our marketing
> department...)
> 
> It's NOT that ISPs are lazy or don't care.  But it's a tight market for
> everyone right now and the spam problem has been getting 
> exponentially worse in the last six months.  
> 
> Perhaps content filtering would be more effective, but again, block
> whomever you want.  That's your right, since it's your server.
> 
> I also agree with people being offended by the message.  I get very
> offended by the profanity in the spammers' mails (don't even get me
> started on all the "Rape me, Mr. <insert name>" spam that I get) and 
> I'd be offended if I got the same sort of message from a bounce.
> 
> If you wanted to include profanity specifically directed at the spammers
> in the bounce message, I'd cheer you on!  But I agree that if I were
> innocent and received that message, I would be very unimpressed.
> 
> Some thoughts -
> Charlotte
> _______________________________________________
> Techtalk mailing list
> Techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://mailman.linuxchix.org/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
------- End of Original Message -------