[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam

On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:08:02AM -0400, Ward Vandewege wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 01:56:40PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:57:28AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote:
> > > > There is no valid reason whatsoever to send bounces for spam. If you have a
> > > 
> > > What should happen when someone sends mail from a spam trap [yes, forged],
> > > to a valid address, WITHOUT any spam content (or content not filtered as
> > > spam, it is the same), and that valid address bounces because its inbox is
> > > full?
> > 
> > Such a delivery failure should be rejected with a temp. failure
> > which would not generate a bounce to the forged address.
> Not always true:
> 1. sender forges address and sends off e-mail
> 2. intermediary mailserver accepts mail and tries to deliver to destination
> 3. destination rejects with temp failure
> 4. intermediary tries a few more times, and eventually gives up
> 5. intermediary *generates bounce* to forged sender

Well sure but that is not the problem or concern of the receiving
site, which is what I thought this was about.

If the forwarding host and the receiving site are actually part of
the same organisation then they should be trying to push out the
knowledge of users and mailboxes to their edge so that the
forwarding hosts don't have to accept mail they can't/won't deliver.

> Making the argument that there should never be bounces is silly.

It's something that I believe should be aimed for whenever possible,
but in the real world I agree that it is not always possible.

http://strugglers.net/wiki/Xen_hosting -- A Xen VPS hosting hobby
Encrypted mail welcome - keyid 0x604DE5DB

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: