[SpamCop-List] Re: Spamcop blocked due to auto-responder

[BD]

Blocking inappropriate content has provided a mild relief of the most obvious SPAM. If they are stupid enough to have the word VIAGRA in an email to our accounts then they will get blocked. We only included a response message because we had several emails that got dumped and it created some issues. Yes this is probably a policy issue, but then again that's a whole other problem.

>>> Mike Easter<MikeE at ster.invalid> 9/15/2005 2:31 PM >>>

BD wrote:
X-Newsreader: Groupwise 6.5
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
Content-Type: text/html;

The last time I did a lot of research to figger out how to turn off html
newsgroup posting in Novell's Groupwise, I determined that not only was
the configuration non-intuitive, but that also Novell's docs on the
subject were very bad.

Here's an archive of my homework:

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-geeks/2004-October/008207.html

Apparently it is handled in the View section, which doesn't really make
any sense to me.

> I did discover that our email filtering
> software was set to send a reply to sender on emails with
> inappropriate content.

That sounds like a 'dumb' configuration.  I don't know what you call
inappropriate content, but it surely sounds like the kind of thing that
would frequently be associated with a bogus From.

I don't know exactly why you want to spend resources on 'inappropriate
content' -- but it would be nice if you could reject such mail during
the transaction -- then a legitimate sender could try to figure out what
to do -- but spam and virms and such would disappear into the
negasphere.

> We changed the settings so that the intended
> receiver now gets a message that an intended email would have arrived
> but there was inappropriate content.

/Anything/ is better than belatedly 'bouncing' or rather sending a
newmail about inappropriate content to the bogus Froms.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish with your server's analysis of
'inappropiate content'?  What exactly are you /trying/ to do with that
function, which might very well be a big waste of resources for a
purposeless task.

>  So far we have not
> been added to the SPAMCOP RBL again, so I hope that fixed it.

Good.

Getting rid of bad configurations is a good idea.  Maybe you should
evaluate the whole inappropriate content concept from the ground up.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin