On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that
because you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies
>> I never said it was.
>>
>> What I said was that when it’s coming from a server that doesn’t
>> except inbound messages (and hence can’t generate bounces) THEN it’s
>> a sign of Spam.
>Since when does a server handling outbound traffic have to accept
>inbound mail?
>Any setup with more than a do
On 09/24/2015 06:17 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for
debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't
blo
On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
>>>
>>> if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that
>>> because you violating RFC
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:30:42 +
David Jones wrote:
> I agree with you and Reindl on this point too. I guess what I meant
> to say is usually the hardest spam to block with a null sender is
> backscatter from a normally trusted/good reputation mail server.
Yes, that can be very annoying. Luc
>
>From: Dianne Skoll
>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:02 AM
>To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom
>On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
>David Jones wrote:
>> I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
David Jones wrote:
> I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot
> of legit emails.
Well, if you run your own mail server, you can do whatever you like so
long as you accept the consequences.
I would say: A null sender is not necessar
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:21:33 +
David Jones wrote:
>
> >From: Reindl Harald
> >do what you want - a empty envelope from is not a sign of spam
>
> I agree with Reindl. You can't block null senders or you break a lot
> of legit emails.
You're agreeing
>From: Reindl Harald
>Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 5:12 AM
>To: Philip Prindeville
>Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Test for empty EnvelopeFrom
>Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> Stating facts here, not giving an o
Am 23.09.2015 um 19:24 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
Stating facts here, not giving an opinion. Not sure what’s up for debate.
if it is empty it's <> aka Null-Sender and you really don't block that because
you violating RFC's, block sane autoreplies usng it to prevent mail-loops and the
subje
10 matches
Mail list logo
