When we reject a message because it contains a URI that is in SURBL, should our 550 message refer the sender to www.surbl.org? The surbl web pages seem to be addressed to mail system administrators rather than general email users.
I'm asking partly so that we don't raise the support load on the surbl folks when we start rejecting.
Of course there should be near zero instances of ordinary people ever seeing the reject message, making this a moot question. Is any other system directing senders to www.surbl.org?
Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology
At 11:52 11-09-2006, Joseph Brennan wrote:
When we reject a message because it contains a URI that is in SURBL, should our 550 message refer the sender to www.surbl.org? The surbl web pages seem to be addressed to mail system administrators rather than general email users.
It may be confusing for end-users if you point them to www.surbl.org.
I'm asking partly so that we don't raise the support load on the surbl folks when we start rejecting.
It is less work if the user contacts the mail system administrator. The latter can then determine which URI in the sender's message triggered the rejection and contact surbl.org about it.
Regards, -sm
On Monday, September 11, 2006, 2:09:02 PM, SM SM wrote:
At 11:52 11-09-2006, Joseph Brennan wrote:
When we reject a message because it contains a URI that is in SURBL, should our 550 message refer the sender to www.surbl.org? The surbl web pages seem to be addressed to mail system administrators rather than general email users.
It may be confusing for end-users if you point them to www.surbl.org.
I'm asking partly so that we don't raise the support load on the surbl folks when we start rejecting.
It is less work if the user contacts the mail system administrator. The latter can then determine which URI in the sender's message triggered the rejection and contact surbl.org about it.
Regards, -sm
Thanks sm and Rob. I agree with sm that it would probably be better if end users did not contact us directly. Mail administrators and abuse desk folks should have a much better chance of understanding what's going on, so we would prefer to hear from them in the event of a false positive. As Rob mentions, FPs tend to be quite rare since we're trying to blacklist only hard-core spammers on SURBLs.
Probably the appropriate references are:
http://www.surbl.org/lists.html (about the lists)
http://www.surbl.org/lists.html#removal (list removal)
Cheers,
Jeff C. -- Don't harm innocent bystanders.
Jeff Chan jeffc@surbl.org wrote:
Thanks sm and Rob. I agree with sm that it would probably be better if end users did not contact us directly. Mail administrators and abuse desk folks should have a much better chance of understanding what's going on, so we would prefer to hear from them in the event of a false positive. As Rob mentions, FPs tend to be quite rare since we're trying to blacklist only hard-core spammers on SURBLs.
OK, that's what I will do. They will see our generic spam message and contact our helpdesk, and I will be able to tell from the system log what the problem was. The log will record the URI and that it matched a SURBL record. I'm glad I asked.
Regarding rejection, I realize I just popped up on this list without intro. Columbia University's mail system refuses about 1 million messages a day based on Spamhaus, NJABL, DNSBL, high Spamassassin score, and rules written in Mimedefang. SURBL looks like a good addition to our arsenal.
Logging in test yesterday and overnight suggests that SURBL will catch 50,000 messages a day that are not already caught before Spamassassin (which we run last). That's very worthwhile. Great!
Joseph Brennan Columbia University Information Technology
-
Jeff Chan -
Joseph Brennan -
SM