Re: spam category for Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser
2009/11/24 William Yardley > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:03:10AM -0500, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > * Michael Stevens [2009-11-13T10:20:58] > > > > I'm pondering adding a "spam" category to std_reason in > > > Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser. > > > > > > This would record when a message was bounced because the recipient > > > considered it spam. > > > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > > > Yes. > > I think there had been some talk about this a long while back, when I > was using MBP for a project & working on this a little more actively. > > The only issue to me is that calling it "spam" doesn't make it super > obvious whether the message itself is spam (i.e., not a bounce at all, > but spam), or whether the bounce parser thinks that the message was > rejected because the intended recipient considered it spam (I think it > might actually be useful to have a "spam" classification for messages > tagged as spam by an external filter, but passed along to the > bounce-parser). > It's a potential problem, with the name "spam", although if they read the documentation they'll see it explains what's considered spam (see my tree on github). > On a more technical level, I think it may be difficult to do this > reliably. Presumably, dnsbl based rejections (e.g., "554 10.0.0.1 blocked > by > dnsbl.example.com"), anything containing the word spam ("554 message > appears to be spam"), and other low hanging fruit would be easy > enough to match, but I think any such logic should definitely err on the > side of caution. Plenty of policy based rejections aren't due to spam. > At the moment the classifications I've done are only on fairly obvious "you have been blackllisted / are considered spam" examples, so hopefully we're okay here. I don't have as much time to spend looking at bounces as I have had in the past few weeks, but I still hope to keep tweaking things on and off. -- Michael Stevens Dianomi Ltd 18 Buckingham Gate London SW1E 6LB Tel: 020 7802 5530 Fax: 020 7630 7356 www.dianomi.com The information in this message and any attachment is intended for the addressee and is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Dianomi Ltd, Registered Office: One America Square, Crosswall, London. EC3N 2SG. Registered in England and Wales with Company Registration Number 4513809. VAT registration number: 809754988
Re: spam category for Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:03:10AM -0500, Ricardo Signes wrote: > * Michael Stevens [2009-11-13T10:20:58] > > I'm pondering adding a "spam" category to std_reason in > > Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser. > > > > This would record when a message was bounced because the recipient > > considered it spam. > > > > Does this sound reasonable? > > Yes. I think there had been some talk about this a long while back, when I was using MBP for a project & working on this a little more actively. The only issue to me is that calling it "spam" doesn't make it super obvious whether the message itself is spam (i.e., not a bounce at all, but spam), or whether the bounce parser thinks that the message was rejected because the intended recipient considered it spam (I think it might actually be useful to have a "spam" classification for messages tagged as spam by an external filter, but passed along to the bounce-parser). On a more technical level, I think it may be difficult to do this reliably. Presumably, dnsbl based rejections (e.g., "554 10.0.0.1 blocked by dnsbl.example.com"), anything containing the word spam ("554 message appears to be spam"), and other low hanging fruit would be easy enough to match, but I think any such logic should definitely err on the side of caution. Plenty of policy based rejections aren't due to spam. w
Re: spam category for Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser
* Michael Stevens [2009-11-13T10:20:58] > I'm pondering adding a "spam" category to std_reason in > Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser. > > This would record when a message was bounced because the recipient > considered it spam. > > Does this sound reasonable? Yes. -- rjbs
spam category for Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser
Hi. I'm pondering adding a "spam" category to std_reason in Mail::DeliveryStatus::BounceParser. This would record when a message was bounced because the recipient considered it spam. Does this sound reasonable? -- Michael Stevens Dianomi Ltd 18 Buckingham Gate London SW1E 6LB Tel: 020 7802 5530 Fax: 020 7630 7356 www.dianomi.com The information in this message and any attachment is intended for the addressee and is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Dianomi Ltd, Registered Office: One America Square, Crosswall, London. EC3N 2SG. Registered in England and Wales with Company Registration Number 4513809. VAT registration number: 809754988