Re: OT: Re: Recipient validation - WAS: Re: Moderated posts?
On 10/15/2014 4:58 PM, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> It's worth some effort, at the moment it is the single most effective
> anti-spam measure. If you outsource your mail, it's worth going to some
> trouble to find a hosting company who will hold and accept updates for
> a list of valid recipients.
Or even easier, just get them to agree to let you perform recipient
verification in realtime.
> if it is spam, there's nobody to tell, and you don't want to send a
> copy of the spam to the forged Reply-To: address.
Of course not - which is why you REJECT it instead of ACCEPT+BOUNCE..
>> 3. once an email has been accepted for final delivery, every effort
>> should be taken to deliver the message to the recipient, whether to
>> their Inbox clean or tagged as spam (if a spam threshhold is met),
>> or to a spam quarantine,
> Which shouldn't be a problem if there's a valid recipient.
Well, since everything I'm talking about is not accepting mail for
invalid recipients, not sure why you felt the need to say that.
> Yes, and a log kept.
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't keep logs shouldn't be running
a mail server.
*And* the postmaster address monitored,
Anyone who runs a mail server and doesn't monitor the postmaster address
shouldn't be running a mail server.
> and a request to know the disposition of a vanished email should be
> answered, along with the reason. Especially if the request is
> accompanied by one of your message IDs...
Absolutely...
> Of course. Already-accepted spam *must* be silently dropped.
Absolutely NOT!
It should be *delivered*, either tagged as spam to the Inbox, or to a
quarantine, but it should be delivered. I only allow tagged delivery for
more sophisticated users. Normal users have to check their quarantine.
The only exception on my system is anything with a verified malicious
payload, which is delivered to an admin mailbox, not to the intended
recipient/victim.
Reply to: