On 4/17/2023 3:59 PM, Tyler Montney via Postfix-users wrote:
That is the purpose of this discussion, to determine what exactly
this scenario presents. As stated above, Provider A is aware and
believes it's acceptable. It is acceptable because their
documentation has features which rely on it. No justification why
these features require it was given, so their reasoning for initial
acceptance is poor. To put it another way, it's like RFC-Ignorant.
You don't HAVE to list a postmaster address, but it's such a small
gesture to play nice with the rest of the world. Why rely entirely
on your spam filter (or unknown mitigations) when a common feature
such as authentication will do the job? Why the risk?
This is a local spam problem.
Report abuse to your provider. If the provider is unwilling or
unable to fix the abuse, find another provider.
-- Noel Jones
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
