North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: 220.127.116.11 (18.104.22.168 /24) blocked by bellsouth.net for SMTP
Sean Figgins wrote:
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.On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:regular email forwarding IF you filter firstAnd 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?
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.
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...