On 11/22/2017 06:47 PM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
I never liked the design choice which said permission failure had to
look like nonexistence,
Is this a reference to the mentality of needing to say "username or
password" instead of "password" in an attempt to not confirm that a
"username
Hmm, I was mostly thinking “oh, you already have technical measures
against backscatter” (like sending the bounce only when SPF/DKIM are
defined and match), and deducing from there that maybe the same
protection granted to a “moderation pending” email would work?
Basically, I'm thinking “moderatio
So, you're answer to whether we should make more backscatter is that we
already make some so what's the big deal?
Hmm
This seems like the most obvious case of backscatter, when we think
something is spam.
I never liked the design choice which said permission failure had to look
like nonexistence
On 11/22/2017 04:51 PM, Brandon Long wrote:
> If you send me the full headers I can take a look, but yes, sounds like
> either moderation or spam moderation.
So after checking, it was indeed spam moderation. Thanks Brandon!
I'd just like to raise the issue of whether to send a “your message is
pe
