Re: [spf-discuss] SPF, DKIM, and NIH

--On 14 October 2009 20:35:16 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> 
wrote:
> Ian Eiloart wrote:
> > > One strategy I'm considering is to start rejecting content filtered
> > > email (at end of message)
> > We do that. We don't quarantine anything: if we don't like it, we reject
> > it at smtp time, otherwise we deliver it with spamassassin comments
> > added, so that users can filter if they wish. Above a certain threshold,
> > though, we simply reject.
> The common criterion for dropping is that by rejecting you are providing
> a free test machine for spammers to keep trying various alternatives
> until they get the message through. (Well, transferring SA comments to a
> multi-line rejection text isn't usually provided.)
The reason we don't drop is the possibility of false positives. After a 
reject, they should be returned to the sender. Also, I like to think that 
rejection might persuade a spammer to leave our site alone.
Is there a way of determining which spams are likely to be fed back to the 
spammers?

--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/


-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org [http://www.openspf.org]
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/ 
[http://www.listbox.com/member/]

Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com