North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: jc dill
  • Date: Mon Sep 26 00:07:15 2005 
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...