> Doesn't that assume that a "false positive" would be the same as a > complaint?
I never said it was. I am quite certain my false positives are higher than my complaints. On the other hand, due to the nature and volume of mails involved, I do get a lot of feedback from our users. This helps find the issues when they do happen. > Right now, I'm hand inspecting all of my policy rejects (but I don't > have anywhere near 80,000 of them per day). I know the few false Yah, sort of makes close watching impossible. > Philosophically, though, I set this up to control UCE, especially the > vulgar and pornographic type. NOT running an abuse@ address is not the > same thing, IMO, as sending spam, and therefore, is not a policy item > that I would necessarily use to say someone is not entitled to email my > users. (Of course, the nice thing about policies are that you and I can > have different ones.) I only use one rfc-ignorant.org RBL because I do not agree with all the RFCs. Servers that refuse null senders, delivery status notification messages, etc. cause my server problems. That is why I do not want to accept mail from them. If something bounces, and it can not make it back because of setting on the other end, then I get a queue full of crap. As for the postmaster@, abuse@ and other "required" addresses, I do not think they were well thought out. The RFCs mandate these, and many more, based off of English speaking principals. I think that is wrong. What I wish was strongly enforced was that the registrar and DNS listed email addresses had to be accurate. Invalid address on your Domain registration? Top level should be required to stop servicing it. Invalid address on your IP contact information? ARIN, etc. should be required to take steps to reclaim the IPs. Force the administration addresses to be accurate. That way they would be a method of at least getting a contact list. An auto responder that says how to contact whom for what issue would be fine. So would actually contacting someone. Then people could choose their addresses they use for their business to have as contact information, and other people colds still easily look them up. The people that like the present RFC say that abuse@, postmaster@, info@, and so on are easier to remember, and make more sense. To this I say, "Not if you are a native Chinese speaker." That is why I only use one rfc-ignorant.org RBL. --Eric
