Will Yardley writes:
> I think munging the headers is a sensible practice, as it makes it
> a little harder to listwash; the main idea of the FBL as I understand it
> is to give you an idea when there's some kind of gross abuse,
That's what they say, but in many cases that's not what they do.
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 18:22 +, John Levine wrote:
> >I think munging the headers is a sensible practice, as it makes it
> >a little harder to listwash; the main idea of the FBL as I understand it
> >is to give you an idea when there's some kind of gross abuse, not that
> >you are required to un
>I think munging the headers is a sensible practice, as it makes it
>a little harder to listwash; the main idea of the FBL as I understand it
>is to give you an idea when there's some kind of gross abuse, not that
>you are required to unsubscribe anyone who complains about your mail.
Munging FBLs
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:55:52PM -0700, Peter Knowles wrote:
> What is the best way to deal with feedback loop messages where the provider
> has redacted the email address of the party who filed the complaint?
I haven't looked at a FBL message for a while, but most of the ones I've
seen didn't
Lindsay Haisley writes:
> If you grok MM internals a bit and understand withlist and python, and
> don't mind importing the Python Crypto library I can send you the
> information on this hack, but I'd rather turn it over to the MM people
> for some sort of public posting so everyone can have a
On Mon, 2014-08-18 at 12:33 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Peter Knowles writes:
>
> > What is the best way to deal with feedback loop messages where the
> > provider has redacted the email address of the party who filed the
> > complaint?
>
> What do you want to do with this information?
Peter Knowles writes:
> What is the best way to deal with feedback loop messages where the
> provider has redacted the email address of the party who filed the
> complaint?
What do you want to do with this information? Just unsubscribe that
user? I'd say pass the buck back to the provider.
Hi,
What is the best way to deal with feedback loop messages where the provider
has redacted the email address of the party who filed the complaint?
Does Mailman have any built in methods on dealing with this issue?
At the moment we "force" a custom footer on all messages which includes the
reci
