Am Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:57:39 -0700
schrieb Hal Murray <[email protected]>:
>
> > There is currently no way to deliver spam to abuse@<google hosted
> > domain>
>
> Google isn't the only problem. There are lots of outfits that do
> content filtering on their abuse mailbox.
>
> It seem reasonable to reject mail from IP Addresses on black lists,
> but rejecting spam reports because they look like spam seems silly.
> What did you expect them to look like?
>
> Is that mentioned in any BCP? Do any spam-filtering examples process
> abuse@ correctly?
Sure, using MIMEDefang, we have this code snipplet that affects all our
hosted email domains:
# ACCEPT any Emails to Postmaster or Abuse Address
if ((lc($user) eq "abuse") or (lc($user) eq "postmaster") or (lc($user) eq
"spam") or (lc($user) eq "ham")) {
md_syslog('warning',"Mail to special recipient $user hardcoded
whitelisting");
$vars->{imp_sa} = "ACCEPT";
$vars->{imp_va} = "ACCEPT";
SA = Spam Action
VA = Virus Action
Overriding the recipient's settings and spam filter threshold. As
'spam' and 'ham' are also used to report spam or false positives, we
also whitelist those recipients.
I'm pretty sure each ISP could implement such rules on their spam
filters.
You could also easily match the MIME-Type message/feedback-report and
give some 'ham' score to that rule in SpamAssassin and probably any
other Spamfilter.
-Benoît Panizzon-
--
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
______________________________________________________
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
