On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 07:59:30 GMT Vernon Schryver <v...@rhyolite.com> wrote: > > 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. > okay, I accept your explanation and I apologize. you are bouncing me emails because your email system is broken and not because you are vindictive.
Please excuse my initial assumption, as it is I am questioning your ethics, and to take one leap further, is not such a large leap. For the record: It is a courtesy, when replying to a poster on a mailing list to reply to all, this allows the poster to receive the reply ahead of the posters relay position on that mailing list. Regarding "Message-ID header" - factually, over 80% of all spam (I have not bothered to do the actual number check, it is probably closer to 99.99% but I am erring on the side of caution - as this is science and not opinion, it is what it is) - All contain a Message-ID header. Hard bounce on such a trivial rule, is also clearly what it is. Andre > 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 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
