[RFCI-Discuss] abuse@ filtering [Was: postmasters that reject spam reports?]

[mouss]

csmailreport a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Abuse is the only mailbox that's supposed to receive spam reports,
> so any antispam that refuses/rejects/silently deletes email should be
> explicitly disabled on abuse mailboxes.
> 
> (an antispam that "tags" suspected spams sent to abuse mailboxes is OK,
> but it's also futile because anything sent to abuse@ is supposed to be
> (quoted/forwarded) spam)
> 

But the headers are not those of spam. so spam checks that look at the
headers are still useful.

while I am in, what's the group opinion on rejecting abuse@ in cases like:
- client listed on a "major" DNSBL (spamhaus for example)
- helo invalid (non fqdn or naked IP)
- bogus helo ("foo.lan", "bar.corp", ...)
- mail sent from "<>" (thus sender is not "very reachable")
... etc.


> Postmaster, on the other hand, is supposed to reach the postmaster
> (hopefully some human :-)
> and as such can be filtered by (reasonable) antispam measures to ensure
> the postmaster mailbox is readable by humans and not flooded by spam...
> 
> Of course, if the domain you're referring to doesn't have a working
> abuse mailbox...
> 
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Abuse Desk <abuse at despam.us
> <mailto:abuse at despam.us>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi.  Are postmasters allowed to reject spam?
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RFCI-Discuss mailing list
> RFCI-Discuss at lists.megacity.org
> http://lists.megacity.org/mailman/listinfo/rfci-discuss