Re: [Asrg] Verizon's asymmetrical anti-spam causing problems

"Steven G. Willis" <sgwillis@deepskytech.com> Tue, 08 March 2005 12:26 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16676 for <asrg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:26:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8dpq-0002r7-MI for asrg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:29:14 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8dmd-0004n8-9C; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:25:55 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8dmb-0004n3-Tt for asrg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:25:53 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA16618 for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:25:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.deepskytech.com ([63.175.177.49]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8dox-0002pS-4E for asrg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 07:28:22 -0500
Received: from [63.175.177.201] (63.175.177.201) by mail.deepskytech.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.2.6) for <asrg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:25:07 +0000
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:26:01 +0000
From: "Steven G. Willis" <sgwillis@deepskytech.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Verizon's asymmetrical anti-spam causing problems
To: asrg@ietf.org
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <422D5F2E.2000404@sosdg.org>
Message-ID: <r02010400-1038-3BC505BA8FCD11D99B2D000A9574695C@[63.175.177.201]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.1.4 (Blindsider)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-BeenThere: asrg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: asrg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

It hath once been written:

>The SAFEST return address for probes of that type would be a null sender 
><>, simply by virtue of it not generating a reply. However, some very 
>misguided postmasters block support for null senders, which also 
>effectively blocks bounce messages, without having any real impact on 
>blocking spam.

Mr. Rollyson,

Do you have any data to justify such a claim regarding filtering of email using
an empty MAIL FROM 2821 header as a parameter in an automated decision making
process?

I would be very curious to see any data that you have on this subject to support
your claim. I am sure the ASRG group would find such data to be extremely
useful.

Cheers!

================================================================
Steven G. Willis     sgwillis@deepskytech.com       866.224.3058
Deep Sky Technologies, Inc.          http://www.deepskytech.com/
http://www.badchickens.com/         http://www.store-secure.com/
AIM-iChat: dstisgwillis
================================================================
        Why is "phonics" not spelled the way it sounds?
================================================================

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg