LSMSGCV: Your message to was blocked as spam - please reply to forward it

Damnit, Curtis.

If your filtering mail like this then you should use a different identity for your nanog traffic!

Hi Harry,

You sent your message direct to Curtis in addition to Nanog. Looks
like his mailer acted on the direct one, not the list-relayed message.

The message from Curtis' mailer implies that it's not a blanket
challenge. Maybe you just discovered a problem with your mail server
that he can help you identify and fix.

Bill Herrin

Perhaps there is or isn't a problem with the sender's mail server,
but C/R is *never* the appropriate method for dealing with such: it's an
inherently abusive, spamming approach that was thoroughly discredited
a decade ago and should never be used.



Auto-response (including vacation messages and spam challenges) is the
pro-life/pro-choice debate of the email community. Pretty much
everybody agrees that when they respond to list traffic they're doing
the wrong thing. Beyond that the level of agreement drops off quickly.
A minority hold the belief that autoresponse is always wrong and last
I checked the RFCs still say that a message indicating
undeliverability should be sent when a mailer can't deliver a message.

At any rate, it's about as "thoroughly discredited" as the pro-choice movement.

Bill Herrin