From owner-freebsd-chat  Thu Jul 24 13:36:58 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA22706
          for chat-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22698
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from East.Sun.COM ([129.148.1.241]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id NAA17079; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:35:48 -0700
Received: from suneast.East.Sun.COM by East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id QAA27206; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:35:46 -0400
Received: from compound.east.sun.com by suneast.East.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA04643; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:35:45 -0400
Received: (from alk@localhost) by compound.east.sun.com (8.8.6/8.7.3) id PAA03874; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:35:46 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:35:46 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM
Message-Id: <199707242035.PAA03874@compound.east.sun.com>
From: Tony Kimball <Anthony.Kimball@East.Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: gpalmer@orion.webspan.net
Subject: Re: (over)zealous mail bouncing 
References: <199707241601.LAA03086@compound.east.sun.com>
	<16488.869774356@orion.webspan.net>
X-Face: O9M"E%K;(f-Go/XDxL+pCxI5<W_e*r7B8ojMD.5+qDgOp4/\gTQEgbOoBqf:Vtl*aW:<;9/
	UIVk'U^XhYg+v#r~*X<$Q=_ik@5:%E}pl]9|9|:]WLW8n:fLgg0~cfwWRBQxK/HSG0b1D/gljJC$qp
	b=HDF@+"H<|fXy`w#$8#6A"!F:>*gr[=FN@Y`cl1.Tn
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoth Gary Palmer on Thu, 24 July:

: Stop cyberpromo, nancynet, iemmc, etc from sending out so many CFC's
: then. Then ISPs wont have to take action to defend their systems.

So far, the only *effective* defense I have seen proposed is killing
mail from well-specified originators.  I really don't object to the
MAIL FROM: filtering, as described on 'current' recently, but I do
question its effectiveness.  Improving the quality and general
availability of the originator filters would be a positive benefit.
But any originator filter than drops even one non-spam mail message 
is *broken*.  Email is *important*.  (That's *why* spam is so evil.)

(Aside: When you set reply-to you might like to adjust the addressing of the
former venue to a BCC so that respondents don't naturally respond to
both lists.)