[email protected] said: > The problem is ... trying to avoid mailbombing the abuse@ address by > spammers.
Are spammers just stupidly sending to abuse@, deliberately trying to DoS abuse@, or is the problem spam reporters sending to every abuse@ mailbox they can find? (or something I haven't thought of) I have no problems with rejecting spam reports for a good reason, but "looks like spam" doesn't seem like an appropriate reason when the target mailbox is abuse. What fraction of your spam to abuse@ comes from places listed in CBL or that don't have matching forward/reverse DNS? Is there a special blocklist-in-hell for idiots who spam abuse mailboxes? > Almost needs + addressing for both sender and receiver. What do you have in mind? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
