[RFCI-Discuss] plus.net postmaster listing rejected?

[T]

> So, the mail to postmaster was blocked because "it looks like
> phishing spam", a narrow criteria that is considered acceptable under
> the listing policy. Thus, that was a valid rejection, and the
> submission was dismissed.

While it may be stupid, I don't feel that is a valid reason to list a
postmaster account.

First, it explains explicitly why the message was rejected and a human
should be able to determine they should just forward the complaint
along with perhaps only the header of the offending message or worst
with the date and time and let the stupid postmaster find the message
himself.


The sender should do as you do and realize the recipient is stupid and
a moron (damn, that is me) and forward only the header or specify a
date and time and sender/recipient.  That is what would be expected if
it WAS a virus or perhaps if it was a looping 30MB message -- you
can't be expected to foward either of those so why should you be
expected to forward any message.


Would you also list the postmaster if it really was a virus and not a
419 scam email?

A mail system should be able to reject messages that are HTML, have
attachments, are larger than 512 bytes (or 10MB or whatever your limit
is, 512 bytes might be if it is a really good postmaster that has mail
forwarded to his phone/mobile device) -- any reason as long as the
error message is indicative of that reason.  A mail system can reject
any message it wants (so long as the sender knows how/why and what
they could should do about it).


Hmm, suppose, a postmaster has a challenge response filter on their
mailbox... "reply with X in the subject if you want to reach the
postmaster".... hmm, that's a question.



Back to this question, ultimately, you have know you may have to send
headers only for other messages (real viruses, oversized messages,
confidential messages) so a postmaster could require that for all
messages.



> At the abstract layer, one has to first recognize that they're using
> an A/V program to do A/S work. (It's reporting that it's a "Phishing"
> virus, e.g., that it's spam.)   So let's not get accidentally caught
> up in using the "Virus" term too much.

> The mail to abuse, though, says "We're rejecting your message to
> abuse because it looks like it contains spam," which is an absurd
> argument to make because the abuse@ address is designed for reporting
> of spam [and other abuses]. Rejecting a mail to abuse "because it
> looks like it has spam in it" defeats the purpose of the abuse@
> address, and is considered a listable offense under the published
> listing policies.