> -----Original Message----- > From: Axb [mailto:axb.li...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:20 PM > To: users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Anyone from ReturnPath want to deal with this > > On 09/05/2012 11:07 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > > describe RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Sender is in Return Path Certified > > (trusted relay) - Questions/Concerns/Abuse? cert...@returnpath.net > > describe RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Sender is in Return Path Safe (trusted > relay) > > - Questions/Concerns/Abuse? safe...@returnpath.net > > describe RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL Relay in RNBL, > > https://senderscore.org/blacklistlookup/ > > and btw:
Hi Axb > > Why don't THEY add the headers instead of having SA give away cycles > for something 99% don't ever use or see ? By "THEY" do you mean us, Return Path or our Certified program member? If by us, Return Path, I'd say we can't - we do not mechanically route the mail - we certify mailers practices and monitor minute-to-minute with wide scale reputation data (and pull from our list when don't conform). We could add a requirement that THEY - our Certified program members - add it - but it would take a while - and I suspect it would be one of those challenges in general, across the many varied sending systems and level of knowledge users have of their sending systems. If that is truly easier than the rule description changes, etc... mentioned here, then we can certainly take a look at it. We appreciate the consideration to make it easier for folks to contact us about our members. > > Now if SA devs think this is absolutely necessary (I don't): > > Must those descriptions be so long? > > RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Return Path Certified Sender - > Contact:cert...@returnpath.net > > RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Return Path Safe Sender - Contact:safe- > s...@returnpath.net > > Would be less obtrussive and not break reports so badly A tad shorter? RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Return Path Certified - Contact:cert...@returnpath.net RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Return Path Safe - Contact:safe...@returnpath.net Thx, Tom
