[SpamCop-List] Re: Major ISP's being blacklisted issue

[Mike Easter]

McWebber wrote:
> "Miss Betsy"

>> That doesn't mean that I
>> think all email should be tagged, but that the end user should
>> decide whether to accept or drop email.
>
> If the end user wants to pay more, I agree. I don't want to subsidize
> those users that waste bandwidth by accepting spam that could have
> been rejected.

Hmm.  This might be an interesting discussion, not just between MB &
McW, but 'conceptually'.

I'm pretty sure that I understand that MB doesn't have any problem
whatsoever with a server rejecting mail, because she sed

Miss Betsy wrote:
> I would choose using blocklists with
> rejects rather than tagging.

... however, where I live, at EL, the user doesn't control what the EL
server rejects - *AND* most importantly, the EL servers don't seem to
reject /any/ mail, except rarely errantly.

The EL servers accept the spam and they crow about how wonderful their
default spamblocker is, which puts the spam into the known spam folder
of the webmail by default which is deleted by default.  I'll not
elaborate on how the defaults can be changed just now to not distract
from the discussion.

McW wants to reject spam.  I'm way in favor of that -- because I believe
that rejecting is a very healthy activity, even when it is occasionally
wrong.  When something is rejecting mail, when there's 'trouble', the
goodmail sender knows the mail is rejected and the proper
'investigation' can begin.

I think MB is most concerned of all about goodmail being lost without
her having any control of that.  Maybe she is also concerned about
something else I don't know.

-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin