|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

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...


to post comments

Spam folders considered harmful

Posted Jan 7, 2010 14:23 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

I didn't want to imply that backscatter handling is described there best, but that the reasons why (a) one shall reject spam, not bounce it, and (b) that spam rejection after DATA is explicitely allowed by RFC 5321, contrary to the statement by fluke571.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds