On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Brandon Long <bl...@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 6:50 AM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > >> >Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end. >> >> It dates from the magic bullet phase of SPF, so yeah. >> >> >The reason we rewrite is so that bounces come back to us so we can >> >automatically disable forwarding if the account we're forwarding to goes >> >away. >> >> Well, actually, you're doing SRS with different syntax. Local bounce >> management is one of the few things it does successfully. The >> original plan was that you'd forward the bounces back which >> unsurprisingly turned out not to be a great idea. >> > > Sure, I guess I view all of these as descendents from VERPS, but I guess > that comes from spending so much time in the mailing list space. > > >> >Which reminds me, I need to ping the spam folks again, that page is still >> >recommending putting SPAM in the subject, which breaks dkim, which is the >> >last thing you should do. I think we're going to support an X-Spam >> header >> >instead... except of course that's a violation of RFC 6648. Anyone want >> to >> >recommend a generic header name? >> >> Please use X-Spam-Status: which is what Spamassassin adds, and I think >> several other filter packages. If you parse RFC 6648 carefully, >> you'll see that while it tells you not to invent any new X- headers, >> it says it's OK to keep using the ones that already exist. >> > > Sure, that may make the most sense. We do usually expose the phishing > status of the message as well, but I guess that can just be a different > header for forwarding. > It would be most appreciated if you'd populate it on ingress to begin with and not just when forwarding. it's easier to ask a user which reported an incident when a mail landed in spam to forward it, rather than ask them to try to locate the spam reasoning bar in their UI (if it's present at all, assuming they don't use an MUA, etc...). many providers and anti-spam packages do that (cloudmark, cyren to name two off the top of my head), I haven't seen any ill effects to it and the support benefit is extremely handy. It would also allow third party MUAs to parse and display this data. Are there any good reasons not do so? I am trying to think of the cons and I can't come up with anything really good. Brandon > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop Regards, Gil Bahat, DevOps/Postmaster, Magisto Ltd.
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
