1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.MAIL.SENDMAIL

  • Etiquette when refusing emails.

    From None@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 5 11:34:53 2023
    I was wondering if there is some sort of default or even required
    behaviour when providers refuse email traffic.

    In my perception if you decide to refuse connections, the common decency
    is to at least be able to disclose the reasons why that specific
    connection was refused. Eg. as in being able to produce some sort of
    evidence of the abuse originating from that network.

    I a little worried that the google/outlook trend, of networks that are ‘unknown’ by default are marked as bad, is being adopted by a larger audience.

    I am having an extremely low (not automated) volume on the outgoing mail servers, so I am a little surprised about what is going on.
    Two years ago there was some rookie company that is offering rbl
    services, and they did not even know why an ip address was listed
    because they were using algorithms/ai.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrzej Adam Filip@21:1/5 to None on Wed Apr 5 11:50:31 2023
    None <hzcnjkx656@tormails.com> wrote:
    I was wondering if there is some sort of default or even required
    behaviour when providers refuse email traffic.

    In my perception if you decide to refuse connections, the common
    decency is to at least be able to disclose the reasons why that
    specific connection was refused. Eg. as in being able to produce some
    sort of evidence of the abuse originating from that network.

    I a little worried that the google/outlook trend, of networks that are ‘unknown’ by default are marked as bad, is being adopted by a larger audience.

    I am having an extremely low (not automated) volume on the outgoing
    mail servers, so I am a little surprised about what is going on.
    Two years ago there was some rookie company that is offering rbl
    services, and they did not even know why an ip address was listed
    because they were using algorithms/ai.

    IMHO Spam volume dictates default policies for "strangers":
    "may be good" v. "mostly bad/bad neighborhood".

    Anyway: Providing "detailed" reason is
    * good: for fixing false positives
    * bad: for giving hints to spammers
    * I bet "some lawyers" advise against it

    I think it may be good idea to (make sendmail) treat some 5?? replies as
    "try to relay via higher trust outgoing relay"

    --
    [Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)