John D. Hardin wrote: > That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's > abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I > do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it > will keep people from reporting abuse of your systems to you. abuse@ > can be scored, but don't reject messages sent there.
Sorry, don't care if you're annoyed. It really only bothers me peripherally if a domain makes it hard to report spam. For the purposes of SpamAssassin, it only matters if spam is filtered and ham is let through. As I keep harping on, I don't think it's SpamAssassin's job to crusade for abuse@/postmaster@ compliance. The rules in question almost by definition don't address spam, they address whether people are peeved at how hard it is to contact a domain's postmaster. Which is why I dispute the score attached to them. The corpus for ham is almost four years old. Does it address the current email volumes that are sent today? I downloaded and checked the latest hard_ham, and it has zero emails sent from yahoo.com. If you want to have and justify rules that target RFC compliance, then there needs to be justification that outgoing spam volumes and RFC 2821 compliance are linked. I make the claim that a major source of ham email is getting dangerously high spam scores and that there is little to nothing in the corpus that is aimed at preventing this particular rule from malfunctioning. Let's bypass the issue of whether or not we're personally annoyed when we can't get email to postmaster@/abuse@ and see if there is a way to either verify or refute the claims in question.
