|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > postfix-users archives|
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:33:06PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 20.01.2011 12:29, schrieb Christian Roessner:
> > Why adding a contact form? If a postmaster really does his/her
> > job and scans the logs, finds your assistance info and enters the
> > website, don't you think the same admin is also able to write a
> > mail to you (postmaster@...)?
> Because if his server is rejected you will also not receive this
Typically that's not the kind of postmaster (or end user) who is
blocked by antispam measures. It's more likely the site where the
postmaster isn't a dedicated position, where s/he has other issues
taking up time, and mail is just a poorly-understood sideline, or
worse, outsourced to an incompetent provider.
I'm thinking about end users at XBL-listed sites, where the mail
server itself might be okay, but some employee got a virus which
spewed out over a NATed port 25.
I'm thinking about hobbyist postmasters who don't (yet?) understand
why you can't have a mail server sending from a dynamic IP address.
And of course, the thing we have to allow for, having delegated our
access policy to a third party such as Spamhaus: what if that third
party is wrong? I'll bet Steve would admit to having made listing
mistakes a time or two.
This is all about adding a safety net under a system which is doing
well for the most part. Also, a good safety net might allow us more
leeway in trying more aggressive antispam measures.
Re: the comment upthread about "Alternative Media" being a sort of
admission of failure: that's a good point, but I still don't believe
that a perfect antispam system is possible in the wild and wooly
reality of Internet email.
Re: Mark's suggestion about the Q&A gatekeeper: thanks, I will look
-- Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header