[PLUG] Improving anti UCE testing in postfix...

[Darkhorse]

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 15:53, Ed Sawicki wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> 
> >Ed Sawicki <plug at alcpress.com> writes:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I think it's foolish to use these lists to block mail. The sites
> >>on these lists violate the RFCs for a good reason (to them).
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >And it's more or less foolish to violate the RFCs to start with...
> >
> >  
> >
> >>It would be similar to someone maintaining a black list
> >>of all sites that _require_ MX records when the ancient RFCs
> >>state that A records should be used.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Not comparable.  It's reasonable to expect someone to comply with the
> >RFCs, but not have MX records when the MX and A would point to the
> >same host.
> >  
> >
> It is absolutely comparable. In both cases, the RFCs are being violated.
> Should we blacklist any site that violates any of the RFCs? It seems like
> you're saying yes, we should.
> 
> If so, we may as well blacklist all sites running Windows. Windows
> violates a number of RFCs.
> 
> >  
> >
> >>Next we'll have black lists for "top posters", people who ask
> >>for help before doing exhaustive Googling, and Republicans.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Keep the Republican Persecution Complex to yourself.  Your party is
> >destroying a perfectly good superpower.
> >
> >  
> >
> It was humor.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Is this really a google issue?  I thought it was more 
of a common practice issue.  I wasn't interested in
political commentary.  What guidelines are there if
the RFC's are the guidelines and they aren't followed?

Has anyone used black lists in more of a weighted scheme
where the result of earlier testing affects the outcome
in Postfix?  If SPF passes, I figure on skipping the
abuse and postmaster checks.  The other option I'm 
curious about is putting email on hold instead of 
dropping it.