On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 05:01:23PM -0500, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> | One should generally accept most mail to postmaster and abuse.
> | That way complaints about false positives can be handled.
> | Unfortunately, many postmaster/abuse mailboxes are subject to
> | content-based quarantine, but provided FP complaints don't match
> | content filter rules they should get through.
>
> Are you going to accept appeals from solidly blacklisted hosts?
Yes. That's what it means to be willing to respond to reports of
false positives. When I was recently postmaster for a large company,
I had 80,000 users and ~2 million legitimate inbound messages a day.
The postmaster and abuse mailboxes were not subject to RBL filters.
>From time to time (a few a year) we needed to white-list senders
incorrectly listed by an RBL.
> I'm extremely unlikely to listen to an appeal from, for example,
> a SBL-listed IP address. In this case I think that there is no
> point in accepting email to postmaster and/or abuse from such
> hosts. In fact, you're more likely to get spam from them than an
> appeal. (People do spam postmaster, abuse, etc.)
We had losts of spam to postmaster/abuse, most of it quarantined,
but the legitimate complaints got through, the content filters were
not biased against RBL listed IPs.
--
Viktor.
