On Wednesday 22 June 2005 19:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I am ok with anti-spam measures which enable a well-behaving false > >> positive sender to know they have run afoul, and in which the > >> maintainers of the mechanism promise to try and adjust the system so > >> that the false-positive in question doesn't recur, taking > >> responsibility for false positives. > > > > So the CBL is fine then. > > Depending on how it is used, yes. It must be used in a way which is > something other than just bit-bucketing messages, because then the > sender can't tell that damage has occurred. One way to handle this is > to use it only to produce SMTP-level errors.
The standard way of using DNSBLs is to give a SMTP 55x code, so it satisfies your criteria. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
