Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
> If you do a sender callout (and forget about generating bounces) and
> reject on that basis (that is when it fails), you will have little
> false positives (and a lot of false negatives).
>
> On one thing (the subject line) you are right: spam is better fresh
> than frozen.
>
> Giuliano
You guys are suggesting a callout, but I don't want to reject all mail
that doesn't have a valid return address. Won't a callout interfere
with email from places that intentionally have a bunk return address to
prevent people from replying?
In any case, you are saying not to generate the bounce messages in the
first place. The only alternatives I can see are accepting the spam and
deleting it manually (let's leave that option out for the purposes of
this discussion) or just auto-trashing the spam with no warning to anyone.
If I don't generate the bounce messages, I don't need to do the callout
to prevent the bounce messages from getting frozen.
So, I'm puzzled as to what is being recommended here. If a callout is
going to trash legitimate email, I don't want to do it. Perhaps I could
only do a callout for spam-bounce messages? But you're rejecting the
entire bounce-message concept, so now I'm confused.
I'm not looking to start a shouting match about spam politics here. The
goal is to improve spam management without blackholing legitimate email.
