On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote: > John D. Hardin wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote: > > > >> So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and > >> postmaster from bouncing? > > > > I think you're misunderstanding the issue. > > Nope. > > I wasn't replying to the larger issue in that message. I was > replying to the specific issue he gave in that paragraph, > attempting to eliminate one of his arguments that he was using to > support his claim about the larger issue.
Whoops. After rereading Kurt's original post I see my error. Mea culpa, comment retracted. I will add in refutation of Kurt's hypothetical that RFCI's stated policy is to only list domains that bounce abuse|postmaster as nonexistent or return an autoreply that does not indicate the message will ever be read. They do state (indirectly) that they will not list someone who is rejecting a particular sender for a particular reason, e.g. spamminess. While someone could submit a forged qualifying bounce or autoreply message fairly easily, all RFCI would have to do is send their own test message to see that the submission had been forged. That said, many times I have been annoyed by a filter on somebody's abuse@ address bouncing an abuse notice that I sent *with evidence*. I do not recommend a rejecting spam filter on the abuse@ address, it will keep people from reporting abuse of your systems to you. abuse@ can be scored, but don't reject messages sent there. -- John Hardin KA7OHZ ICQ#15735746 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
