On 04/21/2015 09:23 PM, sha...@shanew.net wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Dianne Skoll wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:56:48 +0200
Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote:
what if Microsoft starts using other IP range tested by
RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP?
Then it deserves what it gets. Market forces are intended to penalize
companies that do stupid things and if we interfere in those market
forces, it will only encourage more stupid things.
Or you could look at it this way: RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP was a really good
spam indicator until Microsoft messed up, so by using those IPs Microsoft
is helping spammers by forcing spam-fighters to reduce or abandon a
pretty good rule. Should that sort of behavior be rewarded?
I presume detecting forged Received headers was the point of this rule
all along, so if we all toss this rule out the window (or adjust to
exclude this edge case), aren't we potentially encouraging spammers to
"hide" their true networks in the same way?
It occurs to me that if MS are the only people who are doing this, a
meta-rule could counteract the score in that specific case. If it
gets used much beyond that by legitimate actors though, that's a whole
other story.
afaik, the MS "issue" has been fixed.
