On 03/01/2018 12:29 PM, Sebastian Arcus wrote:
I know I have brought up this issue on this list before, and sorry for
the persistence, but having 7 different rules adding scores for the IADB
whitelist still seems either ridiculous, or outright suspect:
-0.2 RCVD_IN_IADB_RDNS RBL: IADB: Sender has reverse DNS record
[199.127.240.84 listed in iadb.isipp.com]
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_SPF RBL: IADB: Sender publishes SPF record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_OPTIN RBL: IADB: All mailing list mail is opt-in
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_SENDERID RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Sender ID record
-0.0 RCVD_IN_IADB_LISTED RBL: Participates in the IADB system
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_DK RBL: IADB: Sender publishes Domain Keys record
-0.1 RCVD_IN_IADB_VOUCHED RBL: ISIPP IADB lists as vouched-for sender
It really raises some very uncomfortable questions regarding the
impartiality of SA and/or its anti-spam capabilities. And by the way,
this message is definitely unsolicited, and in now way we gave any sort
of permission or consent to this company or its "affiliates" to email us
- so the whole "All mailing list mail is opt-in" is nonsense.
And why have "Sender has reverse DNS record" and "Sender publishes SPF
record" as separate IADB rules - when SA itself already checks for
these? Isn't this just a glaring way of pumping up SA scores for the
IADB subscribers?
Once in a while, even the best senders can get a bad customer of theirs
that obtained email addresses by a violation of their terms and conditions.
Just block that sender with a local "blacklist_from *@example.com" entry
and report it to SpamCop. If the message headers have any abuse
reporting information then send the headers there too. They should do
their own internal investigation and shutdown that bad customer of theirs.
--
David Jones
