On Saturday 19 June 2004 08:40, Paul Johnson wrote: > Spamcop is what I use. I recommend it. I also respectfully demand > that for whatever list you use, you reject it WITHOUT mentioning the > blackhole list. It's not the list's fault that you decided to use > their listings as grounds for rejection, they don't need flak properly > directed at you.
How is the sender (in the case of a false positive) supposed to figure out why his mail is rejected? From previous discussions on this group, I think we agree that mailrouters should not blindly block all dynamic IPs -- how would you feel if someone rejected your mail because it was coming from a dynamic IP but didn't tell you that? > Furthermore, be sure you have exceptions so > mandatory recipients like postmaster and abuse always accept whether > or not the sending host is listed in a BL or your site will get listed > in rfc-ignorant.org's blacklists around the first time someone who is > aware of rfc-ignorant.org tries to report a mail problem or network > abuse. I just had a look at http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/policy-postmaster.php and it seems OK to use blacklists for postmaster, but only if the rejection clearly states the reason: quote> After careful consideration, there seemed to be a quote> consensus among users that use of blacklists, etc., did quote> not meet the "narrowly tailored" requirements for quote> blocking mail to postmaster, but that it would be quote> undesirable to list sites simply for employing the MAPS quote> RBL and such on their postmaster address. It was quote> decided that we wouldn't list folks if the rejection quote> message for postmaster seemed to indicate the reason quote> for denial ("{ip} rejected as listed on the MAPS RBL", quote> etc.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]