Subject: RE: Proposed new spam policy

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:44:04 -0700

>	Manual filtering is acceptable, if the approver is able to
>	respond to postings promptly.
>
>Need to define "promptly".

1 working day is a good goal to shoot for, but I suspect that some
lists don't get handled even that often.

>Do we really want to publish the "MUST be considered subscribers"
>addresses.

They've got to be somewhere, so that the list admin can configure the
right list.  As Aaron's recent email showed, [email-masked]
finds that they're being filtered/delayed even though the rule is that
they should be let through (even the existing policy says this).

  Bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:56:47 -0400

> lists don't get handled even that often.

Fine - absent explanation, "promptly" could be (mis)read as "hours",
which would be bad ...

> they should be let through (even the existing policy says this).

I agree that they have to be somewhere, but it might be better if that
somewhere did not have an accessible-to-all URL.  We've just put per-WG
chair passwords on the mandatory-to-use agenda tool - if this list of
addresses were in an area that required the *same* per-WG chair
password, that might work, but any unique password for just this 
list of addresses would be a serious mistake.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenner [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:44 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Proposed new spam policy
> 
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:12:33 +0300

Hi all,

>on 2005-10-12 23:01 Bill Fenner said the following:
>> I'm generally against blacklists too.  I'm inclined to remove bullet 
>> "d" even though it's at the end of the prioritized list and has a 
>> specific caution.  What do others think?
>
>I agree.

I tend to agree as well.

>Regarding another item in one of the a., b., c., ... lists:
>
>>     c.  Have the receiving MTA scan the message and send a 500-class
>>         rejection to the DATA command.  This can lead to 
>mailer timeouts
>>         and retransmissions.  This MAY be used, but (b) is a better
>>         alternative.
>
>I've personally had good success with this; it has resulted in 
>my incoming spam being on a clearly decreasing trend over the 
>last year, as it seems that spammers don't really care for 
>sending mail to addresses which consistently reject them.  So 
>this method has an important side effect, in addition to the 
>immediate effect of notifying the sender of a legitimate but 
>erroneously spam-classified message that the message was rejected. 

Interesting.  I would say that this would be a good thing to support,
then.

John