From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cvs.linux-mips.org (eddie.linux-mips.org [148.251.95.138]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB04385E000 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:24:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1EB04385E000 Received: (from localhost user: 'macro', uid#1010) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23992263AbgCVNYD1YHjP (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2020 14:24:03 +0100 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:24:03 +0000 (GMT) Sender: "Maciej W. Rozycki" From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Florian Weimer cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, gcc mailing list , Overseers mailing list , Thomas Koenig Subject: Re: Spam, bounces and gcc list removal In-Reply-To: <87k13c4v5m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Message-ID: References: <82e9a365-63b1-93f6-9860-86f219e191be@netcologne.de> <20200321202941.GA15063@redhat.com> <87k13c4v5m.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: overseers@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Overseers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:24:07 -0000 On Sun, 22 Mar 2020, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Spam bouncing is evil and often hits an innocent person whose address has > > been faked by the sender of spam, making the source of bounces not better > > than the originator. > > I expect this to be an SMTP-level rejection, not a bounce. sourceware > generates a bounce from that, and Mailman reacts to that. But the > target mail server does not generate a bounce. So your concern about > bad ISP behavior does not apply here. You mean as with a failure response given to the SMTP DATA command? This is actually equally evil as the resulting bounce (i.e. a delivery failure notification, or a flood of them, once other MTAs have joined in a response to a mass mailing; that is exactly what I suffered from a few years ago) will hit whoever's fake envelope sender address has been given with the MAIL FROM command. You don't expect a real one with spam, do you? As I say, just silently drop it on the floor, this is the least harmful way of dealing with spam. And sometimes indirectly blocking a specific e-mail address chosen to look like a source of spam *will be* the actual objective of what looks like usual spam. Maciej