[105754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mail Server best practices - was: Pandora's Box of new TLDs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Perry)
Mon Jun 30 16:13:58 2008
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:12:09 +0100
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAACflLoEBLafQbWWwpT+evpQAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 05:25:16PM -0500,
> Chris Owen <owenc@hubris.net> wrote
> a message of 53 lines which said:
>It is because, if someone reports (by telephone, IRC or IRL) that he
>sent an email and I did not receive it, I regard as VERY IMPORTANT to
>be able to check the spam folder (with a search tool, not by hand) and
>go back to him saying "No, we really did not receive it".
In article
<!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAA
AATbSgAABAAAACflLoEBLafQbWWwpT+evpQAQAAAAA=@iname.com>, Frank Bulk -
iNAME <frnkblk@iname.com> writes
>You mean, you don't employ *any* spam mitigation techniques besides sorting?
>Because if you do anything, even as basic as RBLs, you're not being
>consistent with your stance.
I agree completely with Chris Owen's approach, even though I use spam
mitigation techniques.
The reason for this is because those "lost" emails that I very
occasionally rescue from the spam bucket are:
NOT sent by someone on an RBL
NOT sent to an unpublished and unused address
(eg sales@internetpolicyagency.com)
etc.
--
Roland Perry
