Worse still is the silent discards... It makes you beg for a "possible spam detected".
The BOFH in me has always wanted to adjust my rejection messages to show the lowest scored DNSBL in the rejection message, then add a bunch of useless, high-false-negative DNSBLs with trivially low scores just to confuse senders, but I've never had the time or energy to implement it. Plus, I'm not usually that much of a jerk. On Tue, Aug 30, 2016, at 00:18, David Hofstee wrote: > I for one welcome the explicit blocks of email. They tell me simply what > is wrong so I can (let people) fix things. What I really hate is the > "possible spam detected"-like messages. I don't have time to check all 40 > domains in the email and all IPs involved for those domains (and then > usually not finding badness). I like to nitpick and find bad stuff, but > that stretches it. Explicit blocks make my life easier. > > So even if you weigh RBLs it would be nice to see the most important > reason stated in the smtp reply. You could even change that behaviour > given the reputation of the sender. > > Met vriendelijke groet, > > > David Hofstee > > Deliverability Management > MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP) > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- > Van: "Anne P. Mitchell" <amitch...@isipp.com> > Aan: "Michael Wise via mailop" <mailop@mailop.org> > Verzonden: Maandag 29 augustus 2016 19:08:58 > Onderwerp: Re: [mailop] How many more RBL's do we really need? > > > using Barracuda's RBL for high scoring, and not for outright blocking. > > I think that in this day and age, this is true for *any* list - black-, > white-, reputation- (yes, even ours). Whitelists can also have false > positives - even pay for play ones, because while full-on spammers may > not pay to be on a whitelist, or for reputation certification, etc...., > organizations that are whitehat can experience personnel changes in their > email and marketing departments, and an organization can go from > blindingly white to a shade of grey overnight. > > Plus, even more now than ever, what one receiving system may think of as > 'spam' another may think of as 'legitimate email our users just didn't > know they wanted'. In fact, that's why we take pains to make a point > that our lists are *not* whitelists - they are lists where receivers can > get information about the specific practices of the senders - so, like > Rob said - use them for scoring, not for outright blocking (well, > accepting, in our case). > > Anne > > Anne P. Mitchell, > Attorney at Law > Legislative Consultant > CEO/President, > SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance > http://www.SuretyMail.com/ > http://www.SuretyMail.eu/ > > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee > Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium > Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee > Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose > Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > amitch...@isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell > Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell > > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
