In article <6b96f527-0f53-494f-bb65-3e450a386...@wordtothewise.com> you write: >> Note: Some people will vehemently oppose to not placing filters, >> though. Some threads at RIPE anti-abuse-wg show that. > >There are extremely valid reasons to filter mail coming into the abuse mailbox >and I would also argue against >any blanket ’this mailbox must not be filtered’ claim.
Right. There's filters and there's filters. In my experience you can make a pretty good first pass by looking through the message for an IP address or domain that you control and could do something about. Lacking that, it's unlikely that there's anything useful in the message. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for abuse desks that write back to my ARF reports and say opening attachments is too scary so send us something without them. >> If any, you would want to define some kind of rejection message that >> provided the equivalent of a "HTTP 301" so that the MTA itself could >> redirect it to the right mailbox. > >That type of redirect is in the SMTP spec already. Yup, that's the 251 and 551 reply codes. Since they've been in the SMTP spec for close to 40 years and I have never seen anyone actually implement them (at least not in this century), I think it's safe to say they're not going to happen. R's, John _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
