Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.

John Levine <> Sun, 07 February 2010 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76C93A6C05 for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-LBjB8DDLOH for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A97233A695E for <>; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:29:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 33275 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2010 16:30:41 -0000
Received: from ( by with QMQP; 7 Feb 2010 16:30:41 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002;; bh=nJTxTVqhZYVlrxBewN3pyy5qgAhXzWHPQA2ULgMBPSg=; b=WamB5xesx9nfDMgMRJGfvqtPcXMw1N3cxoejtft3shptdqK5EdV5ZAUYT46UyqoIZaAPbuYF3Yd4On3AhBscAHV41QM+aJqXMDqSZgBcWTGF/0Dlo4jYb4eTR4f5EY3Jm+woZAzeGtgLKoGQtFHdFFg3g+srhiYqPtD3F7w4N0E=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:cc:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=k1002; bh=nJTxTVqhZYVlrxBewN3pyy5qgAhXzWHPQA2ULgMBPSg=; b=k9Mjl1+IXSqG8YYzROQv+qZWP3Zt6fIA68/4yz4gbxIqRb1XjqhzRlpLY3XTWNbjICQcSFfL2z4B7JiRFPBnLeITkgNrz6FnPKTmoOZ2TI0OeE1gR7Bvmrja+nxqwJSLvslGbPaLSLjYSTKgs1ccCGPc0KiXr37Czej40zpcKxQ=
Date: 7 Feb 2010 16:30:40 -0000
Message-ID: <>
From: John Levine <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Iteration #3.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:29:44 -0000

> For this reason the MTA operator would probably want to discard
> messages to the arf reporting address unless they were submitted via
> the MSA submission port, or came from inside the MTA operators own
> network.

That doesn't sound like a very good idea.  When I was providing mail
for the customers of a local web hosting company, I tried really hard
to get them to use my MSA, since it made the management and trouble
diagnosis a lot easier.  No matter what I did, I never got more than
half of them to do so.  The rest just used some other account,
generally their local ISP, because it mostly worked.

These days lots of people pick up their mail from Gmail, but who knows
how they send it.  I know people who have Gmail pick up their ISP
mailbox since they like the sorting and spam filtering better, but did
they change their outgoing setup?  I doubt it.

Once again, I would ask people to try really hard to avoid assuming
that all, or even many, mail systems are just like yours, since that
leads to false assumtions and poor designs.