It appears that Robert L Mathews via mailop <li...@tigertech.com> said:
>On Feb 15, 2024, at 6:13 PM, Dave Crocker via mailop <mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>> Not using COI, as well as hitting spamtraps are both solid, affirmative
>> indications of spam. Full stop.
>
>Interesting, thanks. I find I disagree with the "full stop" part, but it seems
>I'm in the minority.
>
>Don't get me wrong -- lack of COI is annoying to others, and an indication of
>poor list hygiene that should be fixed. And in many
>cases, lack of COI obviously *is* connected to further abuse ("spam").
I think a lot of us agree with you. If a sender has some way to be
reasonably sure that the people they're mailing want the mail, I don't
really care whether it's COI or something else. But the cases where
there is something other than COI that actually works are not common.
In a case like this, I expect that some people mistyped their address,
and some gave fake addresses because they didn't trust the library to
handle their address properly. Whatever the reason, they're sending
spam to people who didn't ask for it and don't want it.
>The latter is the kind of thing I want an RBL to block for my users,
>regardless of whether there is also a small amount of legitimate
>mail coming from that form. But I generally wouldn't want to block addresses
>because they send some misdirected transactional mail,
>unless it's being used as part of a mailbombing amplification attack or
>something.
We are really, really tired of excuses about why it's too hard to
manage address lists properly and we are so nice that you can't
block us.
As you may have heard a few times, if you don't want to be treated as a
spammer, don't act like one.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
