Re: Unusual spam recently - hummm - postprocess
Quoting Michael Stone (mstone@debian.org):
> The end result is the same in a lot of cases.
I'm sorry, what part of "fixing local problems first, and understanding
the scope of one's responsibility" are you not quite getting?
> The point is that you shouldn't take a holier-than-thou attitude about
> when people should send bounces.
I merely note that sending bounces of forged spam is a bad thing, for
perfectly obvious reasons, and personally take measures to prevent being
guilty of doing so.
Moreover, I treat sites that visit that upon me in significant amounts
as spam sources, regardless of their excuses. I'm sorry you don't like
that. Your opinion is noted and duly ignored.
> In the case of viruses, when it's unequivocal that a message is
> garbage you should just drop it on the floor.
I'd much rather refuse it. For:
> If you're going to take any kind of action to reject the message,
> OTOH, you've got the possibility of a bounce going to the wrong
> person.
Sorry, this is a dementedly wrong notion of responsibility. Refusing
the mail doesn't generate a bounce message; it just refuses it. I am
not going to take responsibility for someone else's misbehaviour (e.g.,
an upstream MTA).
If the other site is sufficiently obnoxious in its behaviour, it's
likely to end up getting whapped hard, in ways beyond mere refusal.
> That's life until there's a system in place for validating envelope
> addresses. SPF may or may not be that way in the future. At the moment
> it is not.
1. Irrelevant to the question of responsibility.
2. Speak for yourself. I do implement SPF. Please see earlier
citations for implementation details, if interested.
> It's not misbehaving to generate a bounce message. Glad I could clear
> that up.
Send out "bounce messages" [sic] of forged mail in sufficiently large
numbers, and you're likely to end up being treated as a spam source.
That's a fact. Deal.
Reply to: