Can you read this email? (second attempt)

[C de-Avillez]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 07:55:18 +0100
Alberto Salvia Novella <es20490446e at gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter Matulis:
> > If you guys want this setting then
> > you'll need to follow through on the consequences.  
> 
> At least in the papercuts list, which I moderate, the volume of spam
> has been pretty low. About three messages a month.

Good! Most of mine are around 20 to 100 per day.

> On the other hand, instead of moderating these messages, I think it's
> a better design to bounce them. 90% of these come from hacked email 
> accounts, so the person most interested in knowing that is the
> account owner.

Actually, no. Forwarding spam to the theoretical email account
originator, most of time, is just that -- forwarding spam. Most spam
does *not* come from the account set as "From:". So you are just adding
to the problem, not helping control it.

Additionally, these will be emails sent from MailMan, and from a
Canonical domain. Each of the recipients of your spam that click on
"this is SPAM" adds more reason for the receiving mail system to refuse
*ANY* email from Canonical. Why? Because Canonical is a SPAM generator.

> Moreover that eliminates the risk of silently dropping legitimate 
> messages, along with the need of having to moderate them.

To silent drop, or not to silent drop: this is the question.

Short answer: moderator call. It depends on a LOT of parameters, and
feelings, and amount of spam. What I would do will vary. And yes, there
are two mailing lists I silently drop *ALL* non-subscribed emails. But
these two MLs are, I think, border cases. But I *DO* silently drop
selected emails if I think they are spam.

If you do not want the hassle of moderating a mailing list,
then ask somebody else to do it. But to use return-to-sender on all
moderated queue really does not help.

Cheers,

..C..