Author: Chad Leigh Date: To: Andrew - Supernews CC: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] UCEPROTECT Blacklists and why callouts are abusive
On Oct 18, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Saez Padros <david@???> writes:
>
>>> In the best case (when there isn't a specific spammer actively
>>> forging just our domain) we see about 100 times as many abusive
>>> callouts (ones not in response to mail we sent) as
>>> legitimate/excusable callouts (ones caused by mail that actually
>>> came from us), and about 10% of our incoming SMTP connections are
>>> from blowback sources (callouts, C/R and bounce blowback - we
>>> can't reliably distinguish them).
>
> David> so for this 10% you don't know how many bounces are callouts
> David> or real bounces ? then how you know which are abusive and
> David> which not ?
>
> All of them are abusive, because all of them are an attempt to send
> either a bounce, a C/R message or a callout in response to mail that
> we did not send.
>
>>> Having a whitelist for known _legitimate_ senders does not reduce
>>> in any way the number of _abusive_ callouts you do, by definition.
>
> David> what you perceive as abusive callouts are protective in my
> David> point of view.
>
> But you're forcing me to devote _my_ resources to protecting _your_
> network. How is this not abusive?
You volunteered up front to be responsible for the email addresses.
Being responsible means we do things that otherwise provide us no
benefit.
Chad
---
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net
