--On Wednesday, December 08, 2004 16:04 +0200 Ian Forbes <iforbes@zsd.co.za> wrote:
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 15:00, Russell Coker wrote:I agree that we don't want to be nice to spammers. But there is also the issue of being nice in the case of false-positives.I think, that a permanent error is the best response for a false-positive. The sender will then receive a bounce message and he will know that his communication has not been received by the other party. He can then make another plan - like sending a fax or changing ISP.
See my just prior response on this thread, most people don't understand bounces. Yes it could be argued a bounce needs to be reformatted so the humans can read it easier, but it's not my system generating the bounce message, I'm just telling the attempter. Whether it's permanent or temporary doesn't matter.
... "I sent an e-mail but it just never arrived ...(long story about how important that particular message was)..." "Did you get a bounce or an error message?" "No, the mail just vanished - what are you going to do to fix your servers!"
Answer: find their spammers, and squash them. This puts the support load on the offender, not on me. Which is where it should be. If they user sender gets frustrated enough and finally calls us, emails us via alternate channels (maybe via the recipient) or whatever, we'll gladly explain the problem, and helpfully suggest they contact their ISP, if that's not working we suggest they switch ISPs, if they're local we also take the time to offer our own ISP service ;)