[RFCI-Discuss] acceptable filtering of RFC2142 mailboxes?

[csmailreport]

On 7/3/06, James Ralston <qralston+ml.rfci-discuss at andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
> 550 5.7.1 mixing RFC2142 recipients and non-RFC2142 recipients not
> permitted; please resend to recipients individually
>
> My read of the rfc-ignorant abuse/postmaster guidelines is that
> filtering on this basis would *not* be grounds for being listed.
>


It's ground for listing -- AOL has been listed at RFCI for this specific
reason multiple times.

Refer to:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=aol.com&submitted=1146688464&table=abuse
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/detail.php?domain=netscape.net&submitted=1142830822&table=abuse
etc. for details.

I've had this very discussion with Derek a few weeks ago, and basically the
only way to be RFC compliant while using email contents-based filtering
appears to isolate email transactions to administrative mailboxes from other
recipients by returning transient failures (SMTP 421) all other recipients
as soon as one administrative recipient is mentionned, for instance:

RCPT TO: <foo at cmu.edu>
200 OK
RCPT TO: <abuse at cmu.edu>
421 Abuse-bound mail must come on its own

etc. or vice-versa (if "abuse" comes first, 421 all subsequent recipients)

We do not do this at the moment (we return 5xx instead as you suggested) so
we get blacklisted on RFCI on a regular basis for this.

Cheers,
-- Nicolas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.megacity.org/pipermail/rfci-discuss/attachments/20060703/4e1b3071/attachment.htm