Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tuesday 21 June 2005 01:46, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > You could help by listing the anti-spam measures that you consider to be >> > acceptable. Rejecting every suggestion for an improvement is not >> > helpful. >> >> I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false >> positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the >> maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so >> that the false-positive in question doesn't recur, taking >> responsibility for false positives. > > So the CBL is fine then.
Depending on how it is used, yes. It must be used in a way which is something other than just bit-bucketing messages, because then the sender can't tell that damage has occurred. One way to handle this is to use it only to produce SMTP-level errors. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
