None <
[email protected]> wrote:
I was wondering if there is some sort of default or even required
behaviour when providers refuse email traffic.
In my perception if you decide to refuse connections, the common
decency is to at least be able to disclose the reasons why that
specific connection was refused. Eg. as in being able to produce some
sort of evidence of the abuse originating from that network.
I a little worried that the google/outlook trend, of networks that are ‘unknown’ by default are marked as bad, is being adopted by a larger audience.
I am having an extremely low (not automated) volume on the outgoing
mail servers, so I am a little surprised about what is going on.
Two years ago there was some rookie company that is offering rbl
services, and they did not even know why an ip address was listed
because they were using algorithms/ai.
IMHO Spam volume dictates default policies for "strangers":
"may be good" v. "mostly bad/bad neighborhood".
Anyway: Providing "detailed" reason is
* good: for fixing false positives
* bad: for giving hints to spammers
* I bet "some lawyers" advise against it
I think it may be good idea to (make sendmail) treat some 5?? replies as
"try to relay via higher trust outgoing relay"
--
[Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)