On 09/Feb/10 16:11, Ian Eiloart wrote:
The user retrieves a message from our mailstore, and attempts to use an
address in our domain to report it to us, but submitted through a third
party MSA. We'll simply reject the message on the basis that we don't
permit such traffic onto our MX servers. We won't even look at the
message body.
There's a whole theory of other ARF messages that may arrive at a
domain's abuse@ mailbox. A domain's user, or someone writing to a
forwarded address of that domain, writes a message that is reported as
spam, either correctly or by mistake. As part of an FBL or other
trust-chain, the message comes back wrapped in an ARF report at the
apparently originating domain.
The mailbox is abuse(_at_)domain in both cases. Although it may seem
desirable to have different addresses for incoming and outgoing
reports, I doubt such distinction will ever be effective. Indeed, the
forwarded case is ambiguous.
A mail domain worth its salt should be able to recognize if the
original message had been mailed out from its premises, and who is its
blamed author or sender. Policies spell out sequent actions.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg