TMDA spam armoring / Re: Please confirm your message

[cdevers at pobox.com (Chris Devers)]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 <<a TMDA bot>> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:39:17 GMT
> From: <<deleted to protect the guilty>>@$foo.com
> To: cdevers at pobox.com
> Reply-To: <<deleted>>-confirm-accept.1066685957.17949.838d88@$foo.com
> Message-ID: <1066685957.17949.TMDA@$foo.com>
> Subject: Please confirm your message
>
> Your e-mail message with the subject of "Re: tech temp agencies?"
> is being held because your address was not recognized.
>
> To release your message for delivery, please send an empty message
> to the following address, or use your mailer's "Reply" feature.
>
>    <<deleted>>-confirm-accept.1066685957.17949.838d88@$foo.com
>
> This confirmation verifies that your message is legitimate and not
> junk-mail. SPAM, a.k.a. Unsolicited Commercial Email is not accepted and
> any sent to this address will be considered COMPUTER TRESPASS and
> handled by the appropriate authorities.
>
> [ This notice was generated by TMDA v0.51 (http://tmda.sf.net/),
>   an automated junk-mail reduction system. ]


Etc.


Does anyone else think it's rude to leave this turned on for mailing list
addresses?

Mailing lists are a tool for strangers to talk to each other -- of
*course* we don't know or yet trust one another. It seems to me that the
best thing to do ought to be to use a throwaway address, rather than
making busywork for anyone replying to a thread you participate in.

But then I realize that there's a long, boring debate over this, and I
don't intend to rehash the whole thing here.

I'm just curious what the groupthink is on this here: do people really
thing that TDMA is the One Way Forward, or can't we all just install a
copy of SpamAssassin and not place a burden on neighbors?

(Okay, so I'm biased, but I'm trying to be open minded :)



-- 
Chris Devers      cdevers at pobox.com

np: 'Suite No. 4 in E-flat Major - Prelude'
     by Johann Sebastian Bach
     from 'The Cello Suites - Inspired by Bach - Yo Yo Ma'