novaBBS - comp.mail.sendmail - Etiquette when refusing emails.

Etiquette when refusing emails.

<u0jfbt$3rgbf$1@dont-email.me>

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=700&group=comp.mail.sendmail#700

copy link Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hzcnjkx...@tormails.com (None)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Etiquette when refusing emails.
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 11:34:53 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <u0jfbt$3rgbf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:34:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="885ff51050cdac418c02ad394ab6a4b7";
logging-data="4047215"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/50SpTM6zvKuIC5w/wfc7Px/p6ECeubOokfhkDZn8i4w=="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bdfj0g7FlEtLc1d28vEurmUv3Pw=
Content-Language: en-US

by: None - Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:34 UTC

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.

Re: Etiquette when refusing emails.

<anfi+8a1epsq32f-n453@wp.eu>

copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=701&group=comp.mail.sendmail#701

copy link Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anf...@onet.eu (Andrzej Adam Filip)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Etiquette when refusing emails.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 11:50:31 +0200
Organization: It is for me to know and for you to find out.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <anfi+8a1epsq32f-n453@wp.eu>
References: <u0jfbt$3rgbf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5b3cef492ec3445833fbf2d104028c8";
logging-data="4052026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SZ0Q9Ccpq/ICCigGkapm3"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4x4JP6rFdp1fXaIPBfe8wzam9Bg=
sha1:ApoklEj9s6XI75TkPXXVJkvKyyQ=

by: Andrzej Adam Filip - Wed, 5 Apr 2023 09:50 UTC

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

Send some filthy mail.

computers / comp.mail.sendmail / Etiquette when refusing emails.

Subject	Author
Etiquette when refusing emails.	None
Re: Etiquette when refusing emails.	Andrzej Adam Filip