(What I'm writing applies to individuals, not mailing lists.)
I think a bounce would be preferable! Why waste someone's time?
I think it should only hell-ban via a special checkmark. By default it should cause a bounce saying that this person is not receiving email from that address. Then neither sender nor recipient have their time wasted going forward.
I mean for the 0.01% of cases where someone would literally create a new address just to continue harrassing you, yeah, you could then hellban their second address.
Why should we the general public worry about being 'fair' to spammers?
It's like the whole ad block thing. Now people have the power to do something about it they are asked to be 'reasonable' and won't somebody please think of the advertisers?
Nope. They had their chance to be fair with us. Techies have always been able to block such stuff but now it's seeping into the normal users ability/ ux upgrades hide complexity of doing so.
I feel as sorry for the spammers and ad trackers as I did for Borders when Amazon came along. Not at all.
I think a bounce would be preferable! Why waste someone's time?
I think it should only hell-ban via a special checkmark. By default it should cause a bounce saying that this person is not receiving email from that address. Then neither sender nor recipient have their time wasted going forward.
I mean for the 0.01% of cases where someone would literally create a new address just to continue harrassing you, yeah, you could then hellban their second address.