[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NDNs considered harmful

2010-08-12 11:30:06

 On 12/08/2010 15:32, John R Levine wrote:

True statement, but that means the senders of the other 5% are now left
in the dark as to what happened to their mail.
Is there a proposed solution to that?

Talking out of my hat here, it is my impression that spam is much more likely to be sent to bogus addresses than legit mail is, so however the spam fraction of your mailstream, the spam fraction of your bounces is likely to be even higher.

On my tiny mail system, most but not quite all of the bounces can be handled as rejections at SMTP time. The ones I can't are generally deliveries to scripts where the script decides whether it can accept the mail. When those say nope, can't deliver that, when is it worth generating a bounce?

We have had several cases where our customers have been blacklisted by their ISP for sending 'spam', when, in fact, they have just been sending NDNs to all the spam they receive.

This is really quite tricky to handle in these cases - usually we just turn off the NDN sending.

(It's tricky in these cases because it's a 'non-standard' setup - with a catch-all POP3 account at an ISP, then a mail collector collecting from there, and sorting messages out and rejecting messages to unrecognised users - what should happen there? You can't do an SMTP reject, because the message has already been 'accepted for final delivery' by the ISP, so you have to send an NDN or not - the user isn't going to read the messages, so an NDN is appropriate, but causes problems.)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>