[LINK] Fwd: Please confirm your message
Ivan Trundle
ivan at itrundle.com
Mon Dec 4 15:39:08 AEDT 2006
On 04/12/2006, at 3:17 PM, Steve Jenkin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 03:01:13PM +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>> Linkers
>>
>> Does anyone else find this kind of behaviour tiresome, frustrating,
>> and pointless?
>
> No - it isn't very widespread yet. If it was universal, would not be a
> question...
> As yet, is a reasonable SPAM blocker approach. Not perfect.
I disagree. This is not blocking spam, this is blocking a reply to an
e-mail sent to my mailbox via Link.
>> There are better, simpler, and less time and bandwidth-wasteful
>> methods of performing the simple task of sending an e-mail response.
>
> Such as? I'd like to hear what the alternatives are
Virtually any other spam filter/blocker will better determine what is
and what isn't spam without the requirement for the person replying
to confirm the message's intent. I'm sure that I don't need to list
them all here.
> - this approach
> makes it everyone elses' problem, not the recipient. Not a
> very sociable solution :-)
Entirely my point. But it's not my loss - I refuse to confirm that I
did indeed reply to the person involved. I've got better things to do
with my time.
>
>> I don't particularly care that this activity is meant to reduce the
>> recipient's spam levels: I'm not at all interested in bouncing
>> messages back and forth.
>
> My guess is that this is some sort of phising or e-mail verification
> scam.
Well, of course it is, but it places the onus on someone who has made
a genuine reply to an email to further confirm that the message was
indeed not spam. I regard this as an annoyance that I can well do
without, and thus I'll leave the intended respondent with one less e-
mail in his inbox.
> Anyone using a 'whitelist' system would've subscribed with a
> specific list address, and hence not generated this. If you did a
> 'reply-all', not just the list, that could explain it.
And indeed it could, but this is not the point. I reiterate that
there are better tools than this type of email verification/
authentication which do this job. Even my rather primitive DSPAM
config does a better job of identifying whitelist respondents,
without any requirement of follow-up by the sender.
The point of this rant is that communication is made MORE DIFFICULT
by this unnecessary impost, and it effectively means that spammers
have won in this instance.
And I reiterate that it's not my loss, since it was merely a reply to
Adam Todd anyway.
iT
More information about the Link
mailing list