Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry

[Jeff Macdonald <macfisherman@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So in general, for my own system, I don't particular like to give bad guys
> "clues" why their transaction failed.  For false positives, it can help the
> support process in a DSN, but for bad guys, its not like they will listen to
> them anyway or even get them or maybe redirected to someone else. They are
> going to blast away anyway.
>
> So if you can extract how these "bad guy" transaction rejection responses
> can help good guys solve a particular problem, more readers will consider
> it.


I've heard that argument before, in which these help the bad guys. I
honestly think the bad guys already know these details without having
these codes. So yes, it would confirm what they already know. But in
no way do I think this will empower the bad guys.

I do have another update pending incorporating the text that was
suggested before. But it does seem that:

" assigning these codes helps troubleshoot problems and lower support costs by
   allowing sending administrators to resolve many problems themselves."

isn't verbose enough to get the point across to receivers.

-- 
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA