On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 21:36 -0700, James McKenzie wrote: > David Cary Hart wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 17:32 -0500, David Cary Hart wrote: > > > >>On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 22:17 +0000, Michael A. Peters wrote: > >> > >>>On 01/02/2005 01:44:17 PM, James McKenzie wrote: > >>> > > > > > > Yup. That did it. A quick change to Postfix and now he'll receive a > > nitwit-gram. > > I have a problem with the nitwit-gram as a standard approach. We already have a ton of spam/bulk mail/mailing list messages. Why contribute to the clutter? My approach would be dump the offending mail in the bit bucket and ignore it totally rather than adding to the noise. If the user is obviously brain-dead then a single informative message may be nice, then after that the bit bucket beckons. > Glad you found a solution. Now to fix this problem. I should get a > message too. If I'm setup through Earthlink properly, his reply should > get deep-sixed. > > James McKenzie >
