Re: [Asrg] reject and DSN, was What are the IPs

Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk> Wed, 01 July 2009 13:35 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 8302A3A6ABE for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 Xxin-Fg6piZe for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk (karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk [139.184.14.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817BB3A69DD for <asrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seana-imac.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk ([139.184.132.137]:52048) by karpinski.uscs.susx.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.64) (envelope-from <iane@sussex.ac.uk>) id KM3V39-000E1N-BC for asrg@irtf.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:35:33 +0100
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:34:43 +0100
From: Ian Eiloart <iane@sussex.ac.uk>
Sender: iane@sussex.ac.uk
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Message-ID: <5E322E9DBA384C03215D830F@seana-imac.staff.uscs.susx.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20090701123054.32980.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20090701123054.32980.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Originator-Info: login-token=Mulberry:01MzsTypycgS90qGcsn2GmsIY9mbM0JJZhqKY=; 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] reject and DSN, was What are the IPs
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, 01 Jul 2009 13:35:09 -0000

--On 1 July 2009 12:30:54 +0000 John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>  But if you can tell, which these
> days is the vast majority of the time, 5xx is cheaper and less likely
> to cause collateral damage.
>

Absolutely true, and I certainly don't advocate sending DSNs when you know 
that its going to cause backscatter - eg, when you get an SPF fail.

But, what good reason is there for NOT using a DSN when you get an SPF 
pass?




-- 
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/