> Cc: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx > From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: Vernon Schryver <vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > ... > > If that is an issue, it ought to be raised by those who are being > > misled, the targets of mail, instead of senders and other third > > parties. > > it IS being raised by them, for those who are actually able to figure > out what's going on. of course, when the recipient doesn't receive the > mail he's expecting, he has no idea where to look - so he tends to > blame the sender. Keith Moore is not complaining about mail he has not received because of the dasterdly misinformation from the RBL. He is either a third party sender of reject mail that he is certain was wanted by its targets despite being rejected or he is a fourth party presuming to speak for the first parties (spam targets) against the second parties (blacklist providers). An odd thing about users of DNS blacklists and other filters is that many users avoid confronting senders of rejected mail. Many users are happy to let senders assume what the senders want to believe, that the evil nasty rbl consipracy used lies, bribery, and extortion to force an ISPs to use a blacklist. Never mind that after being informed of that evil nexus by senders, most users do nothing but demand even more filtering. Ignore the fact that blacklists are free or cost money and are now generally selling points. Of course popularity in the market is not proof of virtue, but it does poke holes in the claims of senders of rejected mail about blacklists. > ... > whatever. your mail server claims it's forwarding my mail to DCC, and > it's not bulk mail. The first phrase is true but only of mail sent directly from Keith Moore to my SMTP server. His second statement is false. Bulk mail includes any message which has a "a bunch" of copies sent to one or more mailboxes. All mail sent through non-trivial mailing list reflectors is bulk. Spam is bulk mail that is unsolicited. "A bunch" varies depending on whom you ask and when. Keith Moore has long known that his "courtesy copies" to my mailbox are unsolicited and unwelcome. They are identical except in headers to hundreds of copies of the same messages, and so are "bulk." I tolerate (and sometimes find interesting) the copies of his messages that arrive through the IETF reflector, but I object to duplicate copies of flames and insults. If your "a bunch" threshold for "bulk" is 2, then Keith Moore's attempts to put 2 copies of his messages in my mailbox are "spam" regardless of the hundreds of copies sent elsewhere. (Some people say 2 is the right threshold for "bulk", but I run my DCC client with a threshold of 5. 5 is a common choice for vanity domains. Choices for real domains range from 20 to 200 as well as the overflow value of "many.") > > Consider "courtesy" copies of mailing list messages and the people who > > send them. Many courtesy copies are sent unthinkingly by using a > > "reply all" function, but others are intentional. The intentional > > copies amount to "microphone queue jumping." > > "and the horse you rode in on." > > you are misleading people, and you know it. Notice that he does not specify whom is being misled or the falsehood. Sheesh!--what would a reasonable person do who knows that one of his targets doesn't want his "courtesy" copies? Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx