--On 24 May 2010 10:36:46 -0400 "John R. Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I do recall. Perhaps if the list (and other lists) were rejecting the
mail, they'd be more likely to act. We don't have to wait for them, do
we?
Not at all. If we can agree that lists should reject discardable mail
out of self defense, that's a good point to add to the BCP.
I think that's probably the most principled thing to do.
For self-protection, there's also the option of NOT sending the message
with a VERPed sender address. That would mean that a subsequent rejection
should not count against the recipient. If the list is using some other
mechanism to count rejections, then that mechanism should not be used.
That option isn't so easy to deploy though, because it's performed after
the signature is broken. And, there's no point sending the message because
we can't expect that it will be delivered.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html