> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 1:59 PM
> To: Kevin A. McGrail
> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Anyone from ReturnPath want to deal with this
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
> > On 9/5/2012 2:02 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 9/5/2012 12:16 PM, Tom Bartel wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
> >> > > > > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Tom Bartel wrote:
> >> > > > > > Much appreciated Ned, thank you. Again, sorry for
> delayed
> >> > > > > > response. Any suggestions at any time, we're all ears.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ...put the RP contact address into the RP rule description?
> >> > > > > Granted this won't help much if the brief rule hits report
> >> > > > > format is used for ham.
> >> > >
> >> > > If something like that is feasible, we could provide a unique
> >> > > address - e.g. cert...@returnpath.net
> >> >
> >> > To be clear, are we talking about adding something to these
> >> > description(s)?
> >> >
> >> > describe RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Sender is in Return Path
> Certified
> >> > (trusted relay)
> >> > describe RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Sender is in Return Path Safe (trusted
> relay)
> >> > describe RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL Relay in RNBL,
> >> > https://senderscore.org/blacklistlookup/
> >>
> >> That's what I had in mind, yes. If the verbose hits format is
> >> enabled for ham, then you can look at the headers in a FN and see
> >> where to report it to RP.
> >
> > OK, it's better than nothing though I don't know the percentage of
> > people with Ham reporting is very high.
>
> Yeah, so the utility of this might be limited. I suggested it because
> it's something that can be done without any code changes that will
> benefit at least some users.
>
> There are lots of more-involved possibilities that we could explore
> that involve code changes, for example perhaps a per-rule "contact"
> value, and if a rule having a contact value hits, a header like this
> could be
> generated:
>
> X-Spam-Contact: RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED cert...@returnpath.net
>
> > Can you recommend some exact verbiage on specific describe
> statements?
> > Do we want a unique address as RP suggests?
>
> Me? No, those details would be up to RP. Tom?
John, I think your straight forward proposal looks good. These would work:
X-Spam-Contact: RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED cert...@returnpath.net
X-Spam-Contact: RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE safe...@returnpath.net
I can have these setup for our ticket system well in advance of any change.
Is this a code change or what would be the process, level-of-effort, timing to
do so?
