thomas, et al, i have a bone to pick. while dr. bernstein would most likely say that i am no friend to him nor to his chosen issues, the fact is that his complaint has some validity if you look at it edge-on rather than face-on. > Namedroppers is a posters-only mailing list that is run in conformance > with the policies outlined in > http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/IESG/STATEMENTS/mail-submit-policy.txt. > > Specifically, all mail sent to namedroppers is: > > 1) first run through spamassassin. Mail that is rejected here is not > archived, as the number of such messages is large. All mail sent to > mailing lists on the server hosting namedroppers is run though > spamassassin, so this is not a namedroppers-specific procedure. this is just wrong. spamassassin operates at the MUA level, and as such, the originating MTA receives a "final OK" and drops the connection before spamassassin begins its job. the MUA's only choices when dropping mail due to spamassassin's filtering are: issue a new message back to the sender to inform them of the bounce, or silently drop. because most of the mail spamassassin will drop has an invalid sender address, choice #2 is common. for an IETF list, if submitted mail is being dropped, there must be notice back to the sender. because the sender address will generally not be usable, the only possible choice is to issue the rejection at the MTA level. this will require tighter integration of spamassassin into the MTA level than is currently done on randy's system, or indeed, currently done anywhere at all. silent drops are fatal to the IETF's policy of open discourse, and dr. bernstein is right to complain about that aspect of the namedroppers problems he is experiencing. every time one of dr. bernstein's messages is dropped, dr. bernstein's originating MTA should experience an SMTP delivery error and therefore have the option of informing dr. bernstein that such rejection has occurred. one other very minor point: > > I've noticed that Randy Bush discarded Len Budney's note on this topic: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=asnul4%24640g%241%40isrv4.isc.org > > Not so. Len's note was posted to usenet, not to the namedroppers > mailing list. Mail from usenet cannot be assumed to get gatewayed back > to the mailing list. as the usenet moderator of comp.protocols.dns.std, i set up a bidirectional gateway which isc operates. this gateway is far from perfect, and many posts have been dropped (silently, of course) over the years, and anyone who wants to really ensure that their words appear on namedroppers should avoid the use of the usenet->namedroppers gateway, and mail their words directly to the namedroppers list. paul