Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

D G Teed wrote: [snip] I'm afraid this is misunderstood, or I didn't explain it carefully enough. The ISP sending the bounce notification is my home ISP, not the ISP for my work. At home I run a small postfix which relays all outbound to my home's Cable ISP's SMTP. The Cable ISP's SMTP attempts

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 3:42 AM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > D G Teed wrote: > >> I don't think we "send" NDRs as emails originating here. >> I think we reject emails. Maybe you can tell me. >> >> I test emailed a bogus address at work from home. My home ISP's >> SMTP server sent back a N

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote: D G Teed wrote: We user virtual_alias_maps and smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unlisted_recipient is at the beginning of our list of restrictions. client restrictions are checked on connect. In the default setup (smtpd_delay_reject=yes), client, helo, sen

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

D G Teed wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We send non-delivery responses. if these are "user does not exist" or "filter thinks this is spam/virus" and the like, then you are a backscatter source. I don't think we "send" NDRs as emails originating here.

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

D G Teed wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > If someone emailed > [EMAIL PROTECTED] , it > will reject, > saying that user doesn't exist. Our users expect this featur

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:14 PM, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > D G Teed wrote: > >> >> What makes you believe I'm listed? I got a single report >> of a complaint. Have you not used the spamcop >> web interface before? >> >> never ever. should I? No, but as you said, some people report the

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

sure, losing mail is bad. but you should reject mail during the smtp transaction. if your postfix is a lreay server and you can't get the relay_recipient_maps, then you can use reject_unverified_recipient (only for selected domains). Does anyone feel Spamcop's posit

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Charles Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On 11/13/2008, D G Teed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > I'll report the smtpd related details here so those who > > want to know how it is set up can see. > > postconf -n output is preferred... all of it... > > OK - IP

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

D G Teed wrote: We send non-delivery responses. If someone emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED] , it will reject, saying that user doesn't exist. Our users expect this feature. If we told them bad addresses will cause email to be lost without notification, they would not be happy

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

es will cause email to be lost without notification, they would not be happy. > > Does anyone feel Spamcop's position on backscatter too simplistic? >> > > no evidence, no conclusion. > Here is what they say... http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#bounces --Donald

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

feel Spamcop's position on backscatter too simplistic? no evidence, no conclusion.

Re: Spamcop's position on backscatter

On 11/13/2008, D G Teed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I'll report the smtpd related details here so those who > want to know how it is set up can see. postconf -n output is preferred... all of it... -- Best regards, Charles

Spamcop's position on backscatter

om.ru ( 212-34-112-114.domolink.elcom.ru [212.34.112.114]) by acadiau.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54454E4E1 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:02:22 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "ingelbert joachim" To: Subject: ID MSG:81531 I am Julia, 27 y.o. Russia (dating) Is there anything m