Spam folders considered harmful
Spam folders considered harmful
Posted Jan 7, 2010 13:19 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063)In reply to: Spam folders considered harmful by jschrod
Parent article: The SAY2K10 bug
Well, with the exception that it seems to be suggesting that people use backscatterer.org. It does admit that that list includes servers which only do sender verification callouts and don't actually send bounces, but then in the very next sentence says "That list can be used to reject just unwanted NDNs.", which is obviously false.
Backscatterer.org is definitely best avoided, because it deliberately includes these false positives.
Besides, there are much better ways (PRVS/BATV/etc.) to avoid unwanted bounces.
My setup for that is documented here, although it can be done more simply now that Exim has built-in PRVS support. In short, the way it works is that I never send MAIL FROM:<dwmw2@infradead.org> and thus I never accept bounces to that address. And anyone who does sender verification callouts doesn't accept mail that's faked from my address either.
But we digress...
Posted Jan 7, 2010 14:23 UTC (Thu)
by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
[Link]
Spam folders considered harmful