On 29 apr 2014, at 18:25, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 05:55 29-04-2014, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> The problem exists if A is publishing such a policy, B is acknowledging the policy, B is generating a bounce, and the bounce is hitting the mailing list provider. >> >> I do not understand why a bounce should be generated (and not the incoming mail to B would be tagged as spam and/or null-routed). > > I posted a simplified example of the problem at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87286.html Silently dropping messages (null-routed) creates mail blackholes. Yes, correct, but I already see lots of this. I.e. just like any >N points in spamassassin. Anyway, I do now understand the issue and thank everyone that onlist and offlist have explained the issue to me. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail