Re: Blocking mail from bad places

["James R. Cutler" <james.cutler () consultant com>]

Todd makes my point exactly.  As he notes, the rejection message 
tells me that the message was rejected by some system.  It does not 
tell my why it was rejected.  Thus, just like this message, it adds 
more to the noise to signal ratio!

        Cutler

At 4/5/2007 12:28 PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:james.cutler () consultant com>James R. Cutler
To: <mailto:nanog () nanog org>nanog () nanog org
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Blocking mail from bad places

At 4/5/2007 08:38 AM -0700, Thomas Leavitt wrote:

One problem with the "bounce" solution is that <snip/>
==========================
So, I (Cutler) add:

And, even the best-intentioned bounce messages often give lots of 
data, but no information, thus increasing the noise to signal 
ratio.  For example, Paul most likely knows what the following means 
to him.  To me it just means I can't send mail to Paul.


Except that this message tells you why you cant send mail to Paul - 
because Paul's system refused it, not because Paul's system didnt 
exist or that Paul's address was bad.


> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
>   paul () vix com
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:<paul () vix com>:
>     host sa.vix.com [204.152.187.1]: 553 5.7.1 Service unavailable; 
> Client host [209.86.89.61] blocked using reject-all.vix.com; created / reason
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------



-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler () consultant com


-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler () consultant com