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

[Jean-Marc Pigeon]

On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 20:56 +0100, mouss wrote:

> 
> 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.
	etc, like No MX (unlikely), bad SPF (more likely). 

	my opnion is we should "reject" them.
	But I guess, RFC-Ignorant Project have no
	other option than say:

	accept "abuse" from anybody and from everywhere.


-- 
A bientôt
==========================================================================
Jean-Marc Pigeon                                   Internet: jmp at safe.ca
SAFE Inc.                                          Phone: (514) 493-4280
                                                   Fax:   (514) 493-1946
        Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
           Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca">
==========================================================================