On 3/3/07, Bill Cole <asrg3(_at_)billmail(_dot_)scconsult(_dot_)com> wrote:
At 1:07 PM -0600 3/3/07, Al Iverson wrote:
>With a blacklisting, I get a bounce back and can find somebody to
>argue with. With the common method of implementing a content filter,
>my mail is quietly eaten and I get no information back regarding the
>failure to deliver the mail to end recipient. This is worse than IP
>blacklisting; less transparent; less obvious; less opportunity for
>feedback and investigative recourse.
That's not an uncommon way of deploying content filters, but it is a
diminishing model.
Do you have any data to support that it's a diminishing model, or on
what % of spam is content rejected with a bounce?
I agree that some work this way (and I like the change), but I look at
many thousands of bounces a day, and it's still exceedingly rare.
There area a lot of Barracuda-like things in the world, who accept the
mail before doing anything else, and their only chance to send a
bounce (in how they're implemented currently), is after the fact,
which has its own obvious set of problems.
Regards,
Al Iverson
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverabilty, see http://www.aliverson.com
Message copyright 2007 by Al Iverson. For posts to SPAM-L, permission
is granted only to this lists's owners to redistribute to their sub-
scribers and to archive this message on site(s) under their control.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg