Re: [Asrg] What is the standard report-to header X-abuse-report-to ?
Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 03 February 2010 13:13 UTC
Return-Path: <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0138928C14D for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:13:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xPN0jj7IaGXz for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk (lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632DA3A6AFE for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.134.43]:56366) by lynndie.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KX9ORA-000K51-7W for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:13:58 +0000
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:13:57 +0000
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <D395CFE72EB2C56E0C00CD02@lewes.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1265114318.19504.61.camel@darkstar.netcore.co.in>
References: <1265114318.19504.61.camel@darkstar.netcore.co.in>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01kTlTxvqawSvSpqco/V8ErsY597F0IPRfBqQ=; token_authority=support@its.sussex.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Sussex: true
X-Sussex-transport: remote_smtp
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What is the standard report-to header X-abuse-report-to ?
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:13:18 -0000
--On 2 February 2010 18:08:38 +0530 ram <ram@netcore.co.in> wrote: > We provide smtp relay services to our clients and we also spam scan our > going partially. Yet sometimes some weak password account at the clients > end gets compromised and we end up relay quiet a few spams before they > are reported ( on FBL's ) and stopped. > > > I plan to add a header to all the outgoing mails from our servers > X-abuse-report-to: abuse@<mydomain> > > Is this the standard header for receiving abuse reports. If there really > exists a "standard" header There isn't a standard header, and if you're reporting junk mail, why would you trust any header in the message? How do you know that the server even supports the mechanism? There would have to be -at the least- a way that the server could tell the client "It's ok to trust the Report-abuse-to header". That might be through an extension to the POP3/IMAP protocols, or it might be through the recipient domain DNS. And, it should be called report-abuse-to, not abuse-report-to. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/