On 7 Feb, Professional Software Engineering wrote:
| At 13:28 2002-02-07 -0500, Don Hammond wrote:
|
| >not quite as quick to dismiss hera.cuci.nl from having *any* blame
| >here.
|
| Please note that the bounce message which was forwarded to this list did
| not involve cuci.nl - it was being refused directly by a rwth-aachen.de
| server on the basis that the senders hostname wasn't resolving.
Yes, I see that you are correct; so it *did* have exactly nothing to do
with Henry's problem. ;-)
| [...]
|
| >The fact that mail to postmaster(_at_)cuci(_dot_)nl silently disappears into
the
| >ether doesn't help. Maybe rfc-ignorant.org has it wrong. If those messages
| >bounced, I'd *know* they're not being read.
|
| Perhaps the postmaster messages are being filtered aggressively, and the
| message is being misidentified as spew?
That's so completely unlikely in this case it can be dismissed. I could
understand if it was a spam complaint with a copy of the spam included,
but these weren't. I won't bore everyone with copies, but I just looked
at the messages again and there is nothing that could be misconstrued as
spam.
| >Creating the postmaster@ address for rfc compliance, then bit-bucketing
| >everything that comes in doesn't seem to me to be very helpful.
|
| I see a LOT of spew at the standard contact addresses - root, postmaster,
| abuse, hostmaster, webmaster -- they're common addresses on a large number
| of hosts out there, and thus are default fodder.
|
| I actively filter my administrative email through my (somtimes particularly
| harsh) spam filters. Too much crap was coming my way before.
Knock on wood... I haven't had the same experience. I suppose I'd think
differently if I had, but postmaster@ and abuse@ are liberally matched
and promptly delivered by an autopassrc before any other filtering right
now. I have an rcfile waiting in case of a joe job involving one my
domains, but would probably choose instead to temporarily bounce
postmaster and abuse at the MTA with an informative message if that
happened.
--
Reply to list please, or append "6" to "procmail" in address if you must.
Spammers' unrelenting address harvesting forces me to this...reluctantly.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail