RE: [anti-spam-wg] BATV mailing list

  • To: "'RIPE anti-spam WG'" anti-spam-wg@localhost
  • From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
  • Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 21:58:30 +0200

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [
] >The motivation for BATV is not misbehaviors by systems that generate a bounce. > It is motivated by email abuse that make unauthorized use of addresses in >the MailFrom. > >However perhaps I am not understanding your point. Please clarify. Hi Dave, I believe I understand what you mean, but in a "perfect system" it is still a misconfiguration to send (and even accept) bounces. BATV is about bounces as far as I understand by reading the paper? I'll try to be more clearer taking our system as an example: All incoming bouncemessages by SMTP are 50% spamscored by default on our system. We plan to increase it to ~97%. Other mx mailservers that send bounces after receiving the email ("post-bouncing") are misconfigured in the first place so we don't really care about those. They should 5xx/4xx it instead. Customers using an email domain hosted by us will/must always use our server to send it from, even if they are not in our ip-space. If they are not doing that, their MUA is obviously misconfigured and depending on which ISP they sent the email from, the risk of not receiving bounces are present. Therefore, bounce messages will never become a problem.. here. So I say fix the problem. Don't create a workaround for it.