Re: 209.68.1.140 (209.68.1.0 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP

[jc dill]

Sean Figgins wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > regular email forwarding IF you filter first
> And if the customer specifically requests that YOU do not filter his
> email, or set up a system that allows him to see ALL email, even if ti is
> tagged as spam?
Then you simply tell the customer to collect (via pop, imap, etc.) the 
email directly from your mail servers.  Your position is that you are 
unable to provide the service of an unfiltered forwarded address due to 
the problems this causes all the *other* customers on your network when 
the recipient clicks "this is spam" in the final mailbox on email that 
was forwarded thru your network, labeling your network as a "source" of 
the forwarded spam.

It is impossible to give every customer *everything* they ask for.  You 
should give them as much as you *reasonably* can, but unreasonable 
request must be met with "no" or else you will end up catering to a 
bunch of side cases and ignoring your core business, ultimately to the 
detriment of the majority of your customers.

jc

p.s.  Speaking of "unreasonable requests" - I feel it is unreasonable 
for a member of the moderating committee to whine that he can't filter 
out "undesired" posts due to using a lame email client, and to then 
coerce a poster into "tagging" these posts.  I laud the poster for being 
willing to tag anyway, but think it's a very bad precedent that "tag 
because I'm using a lame email client and I'm on the moderating 
committee so you need to cater to my whims" is allowed to prevail.  I 
thought this was supposed to be a group of highly technical people who 
are expected to do whatever filtering is necessary on their own end...