[TAG] (forw) Re: [Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender]

[Rick Moen]

I of course wrote back to thank him.

(If we publish this thread, we should redact out his contact telephone
numbers, please.  Mine, by contrast, is completely public.)

----- Forwarded message from Keith Burris <burriskm at lanetworks.com> -----

Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Burris <burriskm at lanetworks.com>
To: TAG <tag at lists.linuxgazette.net>
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Cc: karsten at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender]

Hi, Rick --

<snip>

>
> The guidelines at
> http://www.backscatterer.org/index.php?target=sendercallouts seem to
> suggest that systems get listed if they do such callouts at all, without
> regard to whether the level of such traffic is problematic or not.  I
> understand their perspective, but do not concur with the implied "No
> level of callouts is permissible" assumption.
>

Given that we drop before DATA (unless postmaster@ or abuse@) if a system
is on the backscatterer.org RBL, I guess that's more-or-less implicit
agreement with the assumption on our part. I'm not so sure I'm comfortable
with that decision. It's been a while since I implemented that RBL and I
don't recall them having a "wait for the listing to expire or pay us 50
euros" policy which I see there today. That adds to my discomfort level.

> I attempt to operate a reputable mail system -- though of course I could
> be misguided or be guilty of operating a misconfigured system.  I'll
> study the backscatterer.org RBL docs more closely, but my immediate
> inclination is that I'm not misguided in this case.
>

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I added linuxmafia.com server to
our whitelist because I felt that backscatterer.org got it wrong; I saw no
reason to honor their listing. In writing you, I just wanted to point out
that the server was listed there.

Regards.

Keith

<snip>


----- End forwarded message -----