Although it's best to ignore emailed (and phone) spam wouldn't a spam-puter get back an >undeliverable< message if the email WAS NOT received and trapped (i.e., it was sent to an invalid e-dress)? So even if ignored (gio doesn't send back any notification) the spam-puter would have some level of certainty that its >spam-mail< went to a valid address due to no >undeliverable< message. And if ignored and sent to a spam box (and was subsequently deleted) wouldn't the spam-puter receive a spam notice (like gio does which would then confirm it was a valid e-dress)?
Looking at this >dilemma< logically, if a mod allows non-member messages (why do this instead of simply asking folks to join up?) then of course "someone" should receive a notice if the group receives a non-member email that goes astray (trapped as spam.) If one wants to go that route then accept that you might get 10 notices/day and 9 are re: junk mail -- the alternate is if you don't want >non-member-spam-received< notices, then simply don't allow non-member emails. Seems like a reasonable trade-off.
Otherwise, one could simply allow non-member messages and either
- let non-members fend for themselves and notify the owner that their emails are not being posted, or
- receive a notice of trapped non-member emails at some interval to scan thru (weekly?)
Perhaps allow non-members to post ONLY thru the web interface? (that's nearly as dangerous as allowing non-members to post via email w/o spam trapping.)
Perhaps allow any/all non-member emails, w/ no spam trapping and all of which MUST be moderated.
These are just thoughts -- as OPTIONS (configurable.)
It appears as if Mark is being asked to fix a self-created problem here? Or am I misinterpreting the >dilemma<?