It would appear that on May 3, David Collantes did say:
> On 5/3/2004 10:20 AM, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
>
> > Actually if {read that *_IF_*} CR systems are smart enough to not let
> > their luser customers dump on mailing lists by mistake by automatically
> > detecting mailing lists and simply NOT send any challenges to it. so
> > that the luser has to personally whitelist it if he/she wants to get the
> > list's messages then I'd actually *LIKE* them. But as long as they need
> > their user to be smart enough to properly configure them to prevent this,
> > then I think that "crap" was an appropriate description...
>
> TMDA[1] has some intelligence built-in[2] that will prevent challenges being
> send to a mailing list, if the mailing list software adheres to certain
> specifications.
>
> [1] http://www.tmda.net/
> [2] http://shurl.us/b0/
>
> Cheers,
OK, then, I'll admit that if a CR system actually conforms to the basic
design of what http://www.tmda.net/ describes as being TMDA, AND
implements the "NOREPLY" action triggers listed in http://shurl.us/b0/
including not allowing the user to configure it out then it probably is
NOT crap. But in the past few months I've seen a few "CR" service's that
didn't appear to conform to it. I suppose there is no way to actually force
all CR service providers to conform to proper TMDA? <sigh>
In any case, given that fedora-list headers include several of those
"NOREPLY" action triggers, I feel that any list contributor who makes
sure that only the list address appears in the To:, Cc: & Bcc: header
lines of the original sending *should* not receive a challenge. And if
they do, then someone is either using a poorly designed or broken CR
system. And the only way it's the luser's fault is based on his/her
having signed up for a bogus service...
I'd like to thank you for the good info on what TMDA is supposed to be.
--
| --- ___
| <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
| ^ J(tWdy)P
| ~\___/~ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>>
