On 9/5/2012 2:02 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:16 PM, Tom Bartel wrote:
> From: John Hardin [mailto:jhar...@impsec.org]
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Tom Bartel wrote:
> > > Much appreciated Ned, thank you. Again, sorry for delayed
response.
> > Any suggestions at any time, we're all ears.
> > ...put the RP contact address into the RP rule description?
Granted
> this won't help much if the brief rule hits report format is used
for
> ham.
If something like that is feasible, we could provide a unique
address -
e.g. cert...@returnpath.net
To be clear, are we talking about adding something to these
description(s)?
describe RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED Sender is in Return Path Certified
(trusted relay)
describe RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE Sender is in Return Path Safe (trusted relay)
describe RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL Relay in RNBL,
https://senderscore.org/blacklistlookup/
That's what I had in mind, yes. If the verbose hits format is enabled
for ham, then you can look at the headers in a FN and see where to
report it to RP.
OK, it's better than nothing though I don't know the percentage of
people with Ham reporting is very high. Can you recommend some exact
verbiage on specific describe statements? Do we want a unique address
as RP suggests?
Regards,
KAM
