On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:03:10AM -0500, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * Michael Stevens <michael.stev...@dianomi.com> [2009-11-13T10:20:58]
> > I'm pondering adding a "spam" category to std_reason in
> > Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser.
> >
> > This would record when a message was bounced because the recipient
> > considered it spam.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable?
>
> Yes.
I think there had been some talk about this a long while back, when I
was using MBP for a project & working on this a little more actively.
The only issue to me is that calling it "spam" doesn't make it super
obvious whether the message itself is spam (i.e., not a bounce at all,
but spam), or whether the bounce parser thinks that the message was
rejected because the intended recipient considered it spam (I think it
might actually be useful to have a "spam" classification for messages
tagged as spam by an external filter, but passed along to the
bounce-parser).
On a more technical level, I think it may be difficult to do this
reliably. Presumably, dnsbl based rejections (e.g., "554 10.0.0.1 blocked by
dnsbl.example.com"), anything containing the word spam ("554 message
appears to be spam"), and other low hanging fruit would be easy
enough to match, but I think any such logic should definitely err on the
side of caution. Plenty of policy based rejections aren't due to spam.
w
