For the most part I agree. Maybe there should be a mechanism to ensure that dangerous content is flagged in such a way that it is 'disarmed' (or very explicitly flagged) but available for research. Not all abuse@ departments require, or are equiped, to work with viruses.
Yours, David 2017-05-04 11:03 GMT+02:00 <l...@lena.kiev.ua>: > > From: Brandon Long > > > To whitelist abuse@domain, you would need to: > > > This won't disable our blatant spam blocking a smtp-time, however. And > > there is no way to disable the antivirus blocking either (I see some > folks > > who complain about that as well). > > I think that by default addresses abuse @ every domain > must accept without any spam and virus filtering (including smtp-time) > messages with Subject containing one of subscrings (case-independent): > fwd, forward, spam, complain, virus, trojan, phish, abuse. > Also messages in ARF format. > Greylisting for 3 min is OK. As is use of a DNSBL such as CBL. > Even greylisting-if-in-CBL-or-no-FCRDNS is quite effective. > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > -- -- My opinion is mine.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
