> From: ac <a...@main.me> > To: dnsop@ietf.org > If any of you are thinking about speaking your mind, there are consequences.
What consequences are those, besides subjecting me to two instead of only one copy of a message that doesn't seem to contain improved words for the RPZ draft? > v...@rhyolite.com > host smtp.rhyolite.com [192.188.61.3] > SMTP error from remote mail server after end of data: > 550 5.7.1 mail uBI4vMnA039102 from 188.40.114.80 rejected by DCC My logs show that the copy of the message sent directly from hostacc.com at 188.40.114.80 to my mail system was rejected because it lacked a Message-ID header. I've long recommended that heuristic because it has few false positives and a high rate of true positives. It's particularly good against bottom rung spam such as pillz and 419; senders of higher quality spam tend to use higher quality spamware. Among the 399 messages sent toward v...@rhyolite.com in the last 24 hours (usual weekend decrease), 43 or more than 10% lacked Message-ID headers. For fun, I looked at all 43 and found only the single false positive, for a false positive rate of 0.023%, which is both not bad and 10X or 100X higher (worse) than usual. By my lights, unsolicited bulk email filtering "MUST" happen during the SMTP transaction at the end of the DATA command so that the envelope and some of the body can be logged and there is no blackholing. On the other hand, I've found that individuals from whom I don't want to see more tend to have delicate and loud feelings, and so I use procmail to blackhole their missives. Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
