Tue Sep 11 16:52:31 UTC 2001
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Vernon Schryver wrote: > > From: "Brian J. Murrell" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 01:04:38PM +0100, Nicholas Piper wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your spam. DCC only works if everybody submits > > their spam for "counting". It doesn't matter if *you* know it's spam > > and therefore don't *need* to have DCC tell you that it is. How about > > contributing the spam to DCC for the rest of the community? > I understood the comment about ignoring dccproc results to concern > white-listed mail. The DCC clients do not send the checksums of > locally white-list mail to the DCC server. I think that is a necessary > privacy feature, since it keeps the checksums of mail that you know > is otherwise entirely private from getting outside your network. Yes, this is what I meant. If the item is known spam I certainly *do* pass it through dcc, and also run dccproc -t many. > > IMHO I don't think so. I think everything should be sent through DCC. > > What if you just happen to be the one or two people that opted into a > > marketing list that is also being populated by address scraping? > > Whitelisting should not be used to suppress DCC counting but should be > > used to suppress DCC-metric-checking (if you know you want it). I will adjust my procmail configuration to report all my Internet travelled mail then, and later ignore the X-DCC headers *if* the mail is from a solicited source. Nick -- Part 3 MEng Cybernetics; Reading, UK http://www.nickpiper.co.uk/ Change PGP actions of mailer or fetch key see website 1024D/3ED8B27F Choose life. Be Vegan :-) Please reduce needless cruelty + suffering !
More information about the DCC