Re: [Asrg] ARF traffic, was Spam button scenarios

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 09/Feb/10 19:29, Chris Lewis wrote:
> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> form abuse@domain is standardized by rfc 2142. Some people (e.g.
>> Abusix) may plan to send machine generated complaints at such addresses.
>
> And they'll learn very very soon that that doesn't work.
>
> Been there/done that in a limited fashion, and even in that limited
> fashion, it don't work.

Why not, _what_ goes wrong?

> Do NOT assume that TiS buttons have anything to do whatsoever with
> RFC2142, standardized role accounts, or whois "abuse-mailbox" entries.
>
> Filter tuning doesn't, nor do FBLs (ARF'd or otherwise). While abuse@
> _may_ get derivations of TiS reports via ARF in some specific cases that
> are pre-arranged in advance, in no sense should we encourage such role
> accounts to be target for a raw MUA (or even MTA) stream of complaints.

It seems to me that a simple filter could determine ARF/non-ARF 
quality of a message in a fraction of the time that spamassassing 
would take to process it, assuming abuse@ boxes are whitelisted.