🚀 go-pugleaf

Rahul writes:
>We are using RSS.  The online documentation is slightly out of date.
>
>>RSS is another of several "kill them all and god will sort them out"
>>schemes of the anti-junk mail crusade.
>
>The people running RSS will only add a host to the RSS if it has
>actually relayed spam. [etc..]

That's neither here nor there. My client got to waste their time trying
to figure it out, then I got to waste their money explaining what
happened and trying to see how to re-route their email system.
Meanwhile some of *their* clients and contractors were not getting
their email. And in all this, neither my clients nor me were sending
junk mail. That someone somewhere sent junk mail through that server is
totally irrelevant to us.

And I had Nojunk turned off.

And the other major national ISP mail relay I suggested they turned to
instead of that now useless one, is also configured for open relay (No,
I'm not going to tell who it is by fear it will become one more victim
of the RSS cheering section.)

>We also provide the username@bypass.us.com escape mechanism, that lets
>you bypass such filtering.  However, if you need to use it, it usually
>means you are dealing with some bigger problem that needs to be
>addressed.

Couldn't you make your RSS filtering layer part of Nojunk? That could
be more effective from your customers' point of view: you could
periodically retrieve the entire RSS list and match every "Received:"
hop of an email against the blacklisted addresses, instead of just the
last one as you do now. You already seem to test these "Received:"
addresses against a blacklist, you might as well do RSS there too. And
then you would leave alone people who HAVE TURNED OFF NOJUNK because
they can't afford "oops we are sorry but meanwhile you are dead" kinds
of mistakes.

Thank you,
Pierre.
pierre@rahul.net