|
we implemented this by not refusing mail but marking it
as spam for the customers to then decide to filter at the client level.
Mail is marked as spam by header and subject mod so clients can receive
it and decide how they want to handle it. At first clients wanted us to
whitelist servers that were not sending them spam but were actually
poorly configured without an RDNS entry. Our policy is not to do this
but rather educate their mail "admins" about RDNS. I would love to refuse mail based on the lack of RDNS but it would be a hassle since most of these mail "admins" turn out to be business owners running exchange over a cable connection. Chris Martin wrote: Bruce, While agree that AOL is not to be looked at a benchmarker, I like the no RDNS policy. I am doing a little research on the matter and wondered what kind of mail volume you go through in say a day. You mentioned that none of your customers complained. We run a pretty high volume server and would really like to keep BOTH customer complaints and SPAM to a minimum. Any one else that has implemented this policy, please comment as to the success or failure of the policy. ThanksChris Martin Rapid Systems -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bruce Barnes Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:21 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Doesn't matter whether the ISP or the SPAMMER sets up the RDNS. Once we can validate an RDNS, we can prosecute both the ISPs who refuse to stop hosting the spammers as well as the spammers. Either way, RDNS assures a traceable route back to the source, and the ability to prosecute either the spammer AND/OR the hosting company. Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New York, California, Washington (state), Oregon and Virginia have all successfully prosecuted spammers now, and the prosecution trend will continue to grow as long as mail service providers are willing to start using tools, and maintaining logs, that will allow them to both refuse spam and capture the spammer's information for the purposes of prosecution. We can debate methodology all day long. Until we, as providers, are actually willing to utilize tools in the war against spam, and to either prosecute, or cooperate in the prosecution of spammers, spam will continue to be a very profitable business for the spammers, and a headache for us and our customers or companies. As I said earlier, since our implementation of RDNS checks on all incoming e-mail in February of 2003, none of my customers has ever complained about a single lost message because of my enforcement of RDNS and we will continue to use RDNS as one of the tools in our war against spam no matter what anyone on this list thinks about it. As I stated earlier, AOL already set the threshold on this. See: http://postmaster.aol.com/guidelines/standards.html. While I don't agree with AOL on everything they do, I do agree with them on this one. NO RDNS = REJECTED E-MAIL. Straight to the bit bucket, no notification, no tears, less spam. Bruce Barnes ChicagoNetTech Inc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 21:43 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check I did not say the spammers would setup RDNS the ISPs will to avoid problems. Kevin-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bruce Barnes Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 7:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check If spammers setup RDNS, then they can be more effectively prosecuted under existing laws, something that's already beginning to happen. Bruce Barnes ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Bilbee Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 21:04 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Then spammer ISP's will setup RDNS for all ip addresses, which most already do! Kevin Bilbee -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Matrosity Hosting Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 6:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check What would happen if everyone refused mail on this test? Bruce Barnes wrote: While it may not be good as a single test, remember that AOL bounces |
- Re: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Matrosity Hosting
- [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve incoming mail Jonas Fornander
- RE: [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve incoming ma... John T \(Lists\)
- Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve inco... Matti Haack
- Re: [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve incoming ma... R. Scott Perry
- RE: [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve incomin... John T \(Lists\)
- RE: [IMail Forum] Plugin to approve incomin... Sharyn Schmidt
- Re: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Duane Hill
- RE: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Douglas Brantley
- Re: [IMail Forum] Reverse-DNS-Check Dan Geiser
