On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:33:06PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 20.01.2011 12:29, schrieb Christian Roessner:
>
> > Why adding a contact form? If a postmaster really does his/her
> > job and scans the logs, finds your assistance info and enters the
> > website, don't you think the same admin is also able to write a
> > mail to you (postmaster@...)?
>
> Because if his server is rejected you will also not receive this
> mail
Typically that's not the kind of postmaster (or end user) who is
blocked by antispam measures. It's more likely the site where the
postmaster isn't a dedicated position, where s/he has other issues
taking up time, and mail is just a poorly-understood sideline, or
worse, outsourced to an incompetent provider.
I'm thinking about end users at XBL-listed sites, where the mail
server itself might be okay, but some employee got a virus which
spewed out over a NATed port 25.
I'm thinking about hobbyist postmasters who don't (yet?) understand
why you can't have a mail server sending from a dynamic IP address.
And of course, the thing we have to allow for, having delegated our
access policy to a third party such as Spamhaus: what if that third
party is wrong? I'll bet Steve would admit to having made listing
mistakes a time or two.
This is all about adding a safety net under a system which is doing
well for the most part. Also, a good safety net might allow us more
leeway in trying more aggressive antispam measures.
Re: the comment upthread about "Alternative Media" being a sort of
admission of failure: that's a good point, but I still don't believe
that a perfect antispam system is possible in the wild and wooly
reality of Internet email.
Re: Mark's suggestion about the Q&A gatekeeper: thanks, I will look
into that.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
