On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 11:31 -0400, Al Iverson wrote: > Ken, the flaw in your recommendation is that you're asking the sender > to change how they do X because the receiver is applying filtering > that they really shouldn't be applying. It doesn't fit the "be liberal > in what you accept" best practice.
Al, senders modify their behaviour for provider specific filtering all the time to reach mailboxes - accommodating extra long SMTP greeting delays, correctly handling graylisting, implementing authentication protocols, adding in provider specific headers etc. If a sender is unable to deliver a message to a major mailbox provider, then I believe the pragmatic approach is for the sender to find a way around it. > Those of us that have used various edge spam filtering devices or > services, they did often have rules where you could exempt some > addresses from the filtering. As it essentially needs to be for spam > reporting, else you're going to miss some reports. Because even if you > tell everybody to zip them up, not everybody will. Agreed. And Google Apps has a per-user whitelisting facility (which is not the same as the master whitelist feature the original poster was using). > (Also wasn't emailing zip files filled with malware a fun exercise for > some bad actors in recent history?) Disabling anti-virus is a different proposition all together! Ken. _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
