Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [John Goerzen] > > We return 550 during the SMTP conversation. If this was something > > from a real human, they'd be contacting us another way. > > Right. I believe this way of measuring false positives is inaccurate, > as I know some users will just curse and conclude that if the system > refuse to accept the email, they will just ignore the user [...]
Where "some users" includes SPI Deputy Treasurer Branden Robinson who used to note it on http://deadbeast.net/~branden/homepage/mailblock.html which says "I find blacklisting based on originating IP, when that IP is not a known source of spam, to be unethical and discourteous." rfc-ignorant, dsbl and securitysage look like they can list non-sources, but this is a more general ethic, as spotting false positives is hard. > Several times I have tried to submit a patch to a > software proejct only to have the email rejected. In those cases, I > just leave it at that, because I do not want to spend more time on > people rejecting valid email. Yes, I've had that happen and it sucks. More when I was with Wanadoo or Pipex - phonecoop is smaller and is less likely to have an unnoticed listing for long, but it still sometimes happens. I published the blocked patches, but some of them (better blind support for Mailman, for example) haven't been applied AFAIK. > Here at work they use the blacklists to decide the speed of the SMTP > responses. [...] That's clever. I do something similar on trackbacks and comments and it mostly stops them after the first response. Is there a guide to setting that up for mailservers? Best wishes, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
