Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

"Mike Easter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Berny wrote:
>
> > I'd rather the
> > sender got the 5xx notice, even my friends.
>
> Being configured so that *your* receiving server can reject highly
> suspicious spam is a very healthy structure.  Presumably there would be
> some alternate pathway by which false positive rejections can get it
> straightened out.
>
> Many people are not in a situation where they control the server;  or
> many recipients don't like for their *own* senders of goodmail to get
> rejected, because many of those would-be recipients and their would-be
> senders don't have access to the alternate channels.
>

That's my problem I don't control my email servers, nor do I have any where
I have some similar options. If I could, that is how I'd do it. If more
people could so choose, then I think more block lists would be used.

I'd love an Email service where I could check of a menu of blocklists to
reject by and with a whitelist. It should be feasible to have an email
service with client customizable blocklisting using say, an LDAP
implementation, where LDAP would serve up the blocklist. Spamcop mail
doesn't cut it for me precisely because I'd still get the spam. Held folder
or not I don't want it.

Frankly there is nothing like a 5xx rejection to motivate a client to go
after his provider, once properly educated.