[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: 3.4rc1 KMail 1.8
From:       "Malte S. Stretz" <msquadrat.nospamplease () gmx ! net>
Date:       2005-03-08 18:05:49
Message-ID: 200503081905.53341 () malte ! stretz ! eu ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 17:45 CET xxyyzz wrote:
> Sorry, remain on "can't agree".

I just imagine the scene with you at the doctor's:
Doctor:  "Sorry, bad news, you have lung cancer but if you stop smokin, you 
have a chance to survice."
You:  "Can't agree."

Cheers,
Malte

> Le Mar 8 Mars 2005 17:27, Malte S. Stretz a écrit  :
> > On Tuesday 08 March 2005 09:07 CET xxyyzz wrote:
> > > So, the mail server at least is known.
> > >
> > > Have thus the refused mail sent back to the server so that the server
> > > which host spam mail will be ennoyed.
> > >
> > > In some countries, the justice has yet held the servers responsible
> > > for the contents they host.
> > >
> > > Why not extending that to the transfer of spam.
> > >
> > > Simply, let's force the servers to refuse the transfer of spam with a
> > > fake address.
> > >
> > > In the meanwhile, i am still asking Brendan to be so kind as to write
> > > the patch.
> > >
> > > If simply we say OK, not to ennoy anybody we stop refusing that
> > > mails, the spammers have won : nobody irritated a part from the
> > > direct recipient and they can quietly go on, spamming with no
> > > reaction neither from servers neither from authorities as nobody
> > > claims.
> > >
> > > If, contrarily to that position, we send on the messages back, even
> > > wrongly, we will increase the global irritation and increase the
> > > probability sometimes the customers or the Law will oblige the
> > > servers to check the addresses of the spammers before transmitting
> > > the spam.
> >
> > Sorry, most of the stuff you wrote above is both technically and
> > socially nonsense.  Please acquaint yourself with the technical
> > background before you start to use words like "simply".
> >
> > To make it short, there are currently two problems related to spam:
> > 1.  The mere existence of spam.  Hard to get rid of.
> > 2.  People/server/software who send reports or bounces back to the
> > wrong people, adding even more useless traffic and white noise to our
> > mail. Unfortunately increasing.
> >
> > Please refreain from the latter (from the first, too, but I think
> > that's clear).  You will indeed annoy people, but that won't help a bit
> > but on the contrary make the whole issue worse.  I repeat:  The
> > functionality to send "bounces" from a MUA is complete nonsense and
> > won't help a bit.  Ignore your spam or report it to the responsible ISP
> > (but only if you really know what you're doing and if you're sure you
> > identified the correct one) but never ever reply to spam in any kind.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Malte
>
> _______________________________________________
> KMail developers mailing list
> KMail-devel@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel

-- 
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
      <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
      <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]