[Fwd: BOUNCE chat at baylisa.org: Not addressed to list; likely spam taboo body match "/<html>/i" at line 160 taboo body match "//" at line 249]

Thu Jun 24 07:15:57 PDT 2004

[Sorry about the noise; in my defense, I was publicly requested to
respond.  -- postmaster@]

>From strata at virtual.net Wed Jun 23 23:28:06 2004
>Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:32:16 -0700
>From: Strata R Chalup <strata at virtual.net>
>Reply-To: strata at virtual.net
>To: fscked at pacbell.net, postmaster at baylisa.org, blw at baylisa.org,
>        baylisa-chat at baylisa.org, baylisa at baylisa.org

>Postmaster, can you please confirm that there are no manual
>interventions or programmatic mechanisms that are treating
>Childers' mail differently from any other mail received to
>the lists?

Sure.  The only issues that prevented the messages in question from 
being posted automatically were (as noted in the Subject:):

* The use of a Bcc: (or its equivalent, a recipient address specified
  in the envelope, but not present either in the To: or the Cc: header)
  in mail to the list in question.

* The use of the (case-insensitive) string "<html>".

* The use of the HTML comments.

The main reasons HTML messages are required to be manually vetted before
being sent are:

* It's a cheap way to check for certain types of spam, worms, and viruses.

* Some subscribers have their MTAs configured to reject HTML messages,
  so the list owner gets to deal with the bounces if HTML messages go
  out on the list(s) in question.

Further, it is my considered opinion that within the BayLISA community,
there is virtually no need to send messages marked up as HTML via mail
to other members of the BayLISA community as such.  (What folks do with
email in private is their business, of course.)

Finally, the correspondent in question has been informed on multiple
occasions that HTML messages are not welcome in BayLISA mailing lists.
After having contributed to such "informing" efforts personally on several
occasions, I have decided that additional notificatons are so unlikely
to have any beneficial effect that it is not worth my time to send them.

Accordingly, if a previously-warned correspondent's messages are
automatically diverted to a list owner for manual intervention, and at
least one of the reasons for the diversion is a reason that has been
explained at length already, I no longer correspond with the
correspondent about the matter, but delete the message and get on with
my life.

Said correspondent has demonstrated that if he posts in plain text, his
messages do get through.  (The BayLISA lists are, in fact, archived,
though those archives are not currently publicly available.  For that
matter, messages sent to postmaster at baylisa.org are also archived
similarly.)

Peace,
david       (current hat: postmaster at baylisa.org)
-- 
David H. Wolfskill				david at catwhisker.org
I do not "unsubscribe" from email "services" to which I have not explicitly
subscribed.  Rather, I block spammers' access to SMTP servers I control,
and encourage others who are in a position to do so to do likewise.