On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabb...@stargate.ca> wrote:
> On Fri 2016-Jun-10 12:32:20 -0600, Tim Starr <timstar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I am not saying this is a good idea, but it sounds to me like what would >> fit the bill here would be a new folder for each user called "Bounced" in >> which they would see all messages sent to their email address but which >> were bounced by their mailbox provider. However, that would defeat the >> purpose of preventing sufficiently malicious email from wasting mailbox >> provider resources, and would seem to be largely redundant with the >> purposes of having a quarantine folder. It would allow for users to report >> undesired bounces to the mailbox provider, though. >> > > That doesn't really seem helpful to me. If you've actually rejected the > message and communicated that to the sending MTA, it's no longer your > problem. The sender can take up the issue of deliverability as you've > given them sufficient information to do that. We're dealing with the > in-between zone where a message has not been rejected at SMTP time, but > it's still spammy. The Junk folder is the means to catch FPs and for the > user to report those to their mailbox provider. The problem is that > silently discarding things after issuing a 25x removes that avenue from the > user and the message vanishes into /dev/null. > > Honestly I would love to hear how other large mail hosts handle this. The > reasoning for discards after 25x have boiled down to "we operate at a scale > you can only imagine; it doesn't work that way" plus some layer >=8 > issues. That said, in this admittedly small sample group, I've seen this > complaint leveled against Hotmail and the related services multiple times, > but not against other large mailbox houses. > > Does Gmail & Google Apps do the same? What about the large filtering > services? I and many others on this list do not operate at nearly the > scale of the MS services, but some other orgs *do*. Are we just not > hearing about similar behaviour at those orgs? > No guarantee that we operate at the same scale (we're probably in the ballpark), but we don't drop messages except when explicitly asked to by senders/receivers (usually after they've managed to mailbomb themselves). We either reject at SMTP time or we deliver to the user's mailbox (or where ever their routing rules tell us to deliver to)... or we bounce. We try to keep bounces to a minimum, but that's not always possible. I don't think it likely we would bounce for just spam, however, usually it's due to late ACL checks for Groups or due to split admin specified policy decisions for messages with more than one recipient. In some pretty extreme cases, we've bounced after >30 days in the case of some irrecoverable internal bugs, but our goal is deliver, reject or bounce, not to drop. We do target a huge percentage of spam at SMTP time, and we have metrics to try and keep the spam label delivery from getting too high, since no one appreciates forcing users to look through a lot of spam or for us to have to hold onto it (and delivery itself is fairly expensive). Which isn't to say that handling this volume at SMTP time isn't complicated, and perhaps we lucked out with our spam system to be able to do that fairly easily... or we're just willing to take the resource hit to do it. I can imagine a different spam system which had higher latency and wasn't able to be short-circuited for a quicker verdict with ease. OTOH, our SMTP time rejections have their own issues, false positives are a lot more visible and harder to deal with (user's can't mark an smtp time rejection as "not spam"). Most of the questions/complaints on mailop about Gmail are due to our SMTP time rejections. Brandon
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
