Carlos Williams a écrit : > [snip] > Content-filter at server.us wrote: > > A message from <jthras...@server.us> to: -> jthras...@server.us > was considered unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Our internal reference > code for your message is 16433-01/qNJBp5TNkzDa The message carried > your return address, so it was either a genuine mail from you, or a > sender address was faked and your e-mail address abused by third > party, in which case we apologize for undesired notification. We do > try to minimize backscatter for more prominent cases of UBE and for > infected mail, but for less obvious cases of UBE some balance between > losing genuine mail and sending undesired backscatter is sought, and > there can be some collateral damage on both sides. First upstream SMTP > client IP address: [88.255.159.190] unknown According to a 'Received:' > trace, the message originated at: [88.255.159.190], [88.255.159.190] > unknown [88.255.159.190] Return-Path: <jthras...@server.us> > Message-ID: <173702817170361.uflfwryznisq...@[88.255.159.190]> > Subject: Come to my place Delivery of the email was stopped! > > ************************************************************** >
so some filter (at server.us?) is bouncing mail it considers "possibly spam". This is a bad idea. once mail has been accepted by postfix, subsequent relays/filters/whatever should no more bounce. if spam is bounced to an innocent who never sent anything, you'll get in trouble... and even if not, you know it is bad to hit innocents whose email address was forged. > [snip]
