Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: Andrzej Filip <anfi(_at_)Box43(_dot_)pl>
Vernon Schryver wrote:
If mail to those addresses generated DSNs or 5yz responses, some spammers
would stop sending to them. That would hurt my spam filtering efforts.
Thus, it is best that mail to those addresses goes to /dev/null
(except for representative samples that are archived on CDROM so
that I can respond to lying spammers demanding changes to my blacklist.)
I wrote that the recipient has the right to send any message to
/dev/null, I have not requested any exceptions for spamtraps (The
spamtrap is the recipient).
In that case, I don't understand your position. If it is ok for humans
and mechanical spam traps to send their incoming mail to /dev/null, then
why is it not ok for their agents to do the same sending to /dev/null on
their behalf and given their permission? Their agents are MTAs and ISPs.
You have right to throw any letter you do not want in straight in a
dustbin. US postal service MUST NOT throw letters with proper stamp and
good return address into federal dustbins even if delivery to the
recipient is impossible.
No standard can FORCE the recipient into reading any received message.
The standard MUST force email service providers to deliver good quality
and reliable service - rejection of "classified as spam" messages MUST
cause notification to the sender.
People are work with take almost for granted that if no bounce is
received in 15m than message has been delivered to the recipient because
it usually works this way. I want them to be able to phone/fax instead
of emailing ASAP if their email was blocked by some problem with an anti
spam filter somewhere. They must know ASAP that there is an email
delivery problem they should report to local postmaster, the guy will
contact the remote postmaster, the problem will be fixed after some time
but for time being they can not use email for contacts with this
particular recipient.
One email channel does not work but the sender KNOWS at once that it
does not work.
The instant knowledge about the problem makes the difference in
legitimate email case.
If those agents are smart, they'll keep good logs to answer hostile
user questions about what is being discarded. Keeping those logs and
answering those questions has nothing to do with the concerns of third
parties. The only parties that matter are the mail target the target's
agents. Third parties including mail senders have no interests.
I had to locate misconfigured anti spam filters a few times. It helps
and saves a lot of time if the original sender gets detailed problem
report e.g.
"We can't deliver your message because your host is listed by rblxxx".
Lack of such report and /dev/null treatment causes at least extra one
day delay in fixing the technical problem. It may cause some business
consequences because people get used to treat email as reliable delivery
service.
If you want to keep people admire job delivered by anti spam filter then
you MUST accept that some problems will occur. You must help to
report/fix such problems quickly. You must help to limit business
consequences of such problems.
From "innocent victim" [by YOUR standards] point of view only his/her
case does matter, it does not matter that the anti spam dev-nulled one
legitimate email per 10000 spam messages.
In short: I have very small objections about "what should be stopped"
but I have big objections about "how to stop".
--
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