Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD41B2E003F for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:05:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30979-06 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:05:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.mailpen.net (mail.mailpen.net [209.90.228.14]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5688C2E00BA for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:05:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from [172.24.2.1] (pool-71-113-24-134.sttlwa.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.113.24.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.mailpen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12612FE802 for ; Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:05:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47AFD7DD.2040000@ultimeth.com> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:06:37 -0800 From: "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" Organization: UltiMeth Systems User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Bouncing replies References: <47AFA703.5060907@ultimeth.com> <15372.1202698673@sss.pgh.pa.us> <15505.1202699499@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <15505.1202699499@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/70 X-Sequence-Number: 30161 I'm open to suggestions. I've been a member of this list for several years, but every time I post here, some scumbag harvests my eMail address from it and I get hundreds of spam (most gets filtered by postfix). I've gone through a half-dozen eMail addresses on this list alone, and it's been a significant discouragement to posting questions, let alone answering other people. I finally came up with the solution below: If mail to my list address doesn't come from one of your list servers (and those seems to change much more often than any other list I belong to), it gets rejected. And boy, does that catch a lot of spam! I'm curious as to why the list server defaults to using a sender's address as the "Reply-to" address, rather than using the list address. That means that, unless the user is careful to "reply all" (or even better, just reply to the list address), any discussion immediately goes private. In fact, I don't understand why the sender's eMail address is visible at all. Yahoo! is one of the stupidest Internet companies on the face of the planet, and they seem to have been able to figure it out, as has most of the free message board software. And yes, I've read http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html -- a very long web page that repeats the same fallacious arguments over and over. They had some validity before spam became a problem, but not now. Anyway, this list is not the place for that discussion. I appreciate the support you give to not only me, but the entire mailing list. I've white-listed you, and I'm open to other suggestions. Sincerely, Dean On 2008-02-10 19:11, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, bouncing mail sent to your advertised reply address is a good way to discourage people from ever answering you again. > > regards, tom lane > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > [postgresql.ultimeth.com] > (reason: 550 : Client host rejected: Mail to a list member must be sent via the list) >