spamassassin-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Müller <>
Subject Re: possible idea for backscatter problem
Date Thu, 08 May 2008 14:31:34 GMT

Henrik K schrieb:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 03:11:59PM +0200, Robert Müller wrote:
>> BTW: Also for me 'null senders' are not common - never had problems with
>> this, except UBE.
> Have you even looked at your traffic archives, if you keep one? How do you
> know there isn't any problems if someone doesn't realize to report it?
I would have realized, if I had this problem, for sure.
> I have concrete evidence.
I believe you, no problem.
>> Correctly configured servers/clients should not produce such mails, IMHO.
> That's just absurd. I could just as well say: "Correctly configured servers
> don't create backscatter.". Yet we have the problem.
I think you misunderstood me. Such mails are  - in my experience - not 
the majority, and therefore this issue is also for me not common and not 
known as a big problem. Nothing more I wanted to say.
Now I hear different from you - fine, something learned.
> In case of VBounce, chances of FPs are even less acceptable. You are
> supposed to reject or discard backscatter, I see no point in just tagging
> it. So discarding is bad, but rejecting most likely means that sending party
> doesn't get any notification of failure either.
> Currently VBounce is only useful as "add little score and hope URIBL and
> other checks match the returned body".
ACK. Because this doesn't work in most cases, and the currently (for me) 
unknown risk of FPs, I actually I sort them in a different folder.
> Hopefully someone has time to fix the too generic rules. We should only
> match sure bounces.
"Sure" is as always relative, but that was the goal, yes.

View raw message