[95823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Blocking mail from bad places
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Champeon)
Wed Apr 4 18:43:25 2007
X-Received-From: schampeo@habanero.hesketh.net
X-Delivered-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:42:28 -0400
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20070404182347.V80173@simone.iecc.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
on Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 06:25:18PM -0400, John L wrote:
>
> >>This technique works great to keep spam out of your mailbox.
> >
> >Inline rejection is a little dangerous for mailing lists
>
> And for anyone else who doesn't feel like jumping through your hoops.
>
> >Providing a telephone number in the bounce is an effective way to deal
> >with false positives.
>
> Only if you assume that everyone who writes to you is so desperate to send
> you mail that they are willing to make what may be an international call
> in the middle of the night. I have not found that to be a very realistic
> assumption.
I have to agree with John here - I've been sending back 'email me at
postmaster@... if this in an error' for all rejections here since 2003
or so, and can count the legit mail to postmaster I've received in that
time on one hand, maybe two; the stuff that gets rejected before the
accept postmaster default gets a different error, containing a phone
number. I've never had anyone call me there.
Not that it bothers me much - I've done my part, I figure, and if they
aren't willing to email a postmaster or call, then <shrug>? What can I
do?
I'll add that even if everyone were willing to email/call with problems,
the hideous things that (e.g.) Exchange does to your carefully
handcrafted rejection errors are enough to cripple the least tech-savvy
of your likely audience, anyway.
--
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w: http://hesketh.com/
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix: http://enemieslist.com/
