--On 24 May 2010 10:36:46 -0400 "John R. Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the >> mail, they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do >> we? > > Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable mail > out of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP. > I think that's probably the most principled thing to do. For self-protection, there's also the option of NOT sending the message with a VERPed sender address. That would mean that a subsequent rejection should not count against the recipient. If the list is using some other mechanism to count rejections, then that mechanism should not be used. That option isn't so easy to deploy though, because it's performed after the signature is broken. And, there's no point sending the message because we can't expect that it will be delivered. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
