Larry Marks wrote:
[...]
What I want is for my mail to get through to people who want and
expect it. I don't engage in mass mailings. My mailings are almost
never to more than five or six people, all of whom I know and am doing
business with. There are lots of people in the same position as me who
just want e-mail to be reliable and usable.
I do not appreciate half-assed spam suppression methods that make the
system as a whole unreliable, particularly when better solutions are
immediately possible.
I select my provider carefully, but that doesn't seem to help. There
is no guarantee that any ISP I pick can get my mail through. Not even
when only the big guys are involved. So I don't trust any of the ISPs
and I don't trust e-mail. That is currently the only prudent way to
go. I advise all my clients to do the same.
That is a sad picture for the ISP industry.
IMHO "good" practice" requires generating bounce message whenever you
reject a message.
You can make your MTA reject message in way which makes MTA sending you
message responsible for generating the bounce message (e.g. rejecting
the message in reply to "the final dot" after applying spamassassin) -
it has been already implemented.
I have heard that some ISP are capable to send message to /dev/null with
no notification to sender. Such practices make email unreliable.
Whenever you send a email message you should always get message
delivered or info why it can not be delivered or info why some server
refused to deliver your message.
BTW I would be thankful for good explanation which RFC recommendation
are broken by redirecting "suspected spam" to /dev/null for quoting in
messages to postmaster of such sites.
[ May be there is a time to create new category on www.rfc-ignorant.org ]
--
Andrzej [pl>en: Andrew] Adam Filip http://www.polbox.com/a/anfi/
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg