On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, John Rudd wrote: > So, why not use a milter that allows you to exempt abuse and > postmaster from bouncing?
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. He has a problem with rfc-ignorant being strict in their interpretation of the RFC requirements. It's not mail to *his* postmaster/abuse aliases that's the problem. My comment: if you don't want to be strict in *your* interpretation of the RFCs then disable the RFCI rules by setting their scores to zero. And if you think they aren't justified in specific cases (e.g. Yahoo) then write a rule for Yahoo messages that offsets the RFCI score. But if the stated purpose of the BL is "this domain does not have a working postmaster address" then it's unreasonable to ask them to exclude a domain that does not have a working postmaster address, no matter how large or popular that domain is. -- John Hardin KA7OHZ ICQ#15735746 http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED] key: 0xB8732E79 - 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Men by their constitutions are naturally divided in to two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. -- Thomas Jefferson -----------------------------------------------------------------------
