On Thursday 05 January 2006 09:49, Daniel J McDonald wrote: > On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 09:44 -0800, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > > On Thursday 05 January 2006 08:08, Shayne Lebrun wrote: > > > Still probably bad form, as you'd be spamming the living daylights out > > > of the poor recipient. > > > > this is why you simply reject (5xx) the message at the gates. > > And then they send it to your backup spam filter, and again and > again....
any legitimate MTA treating a 5xx response as a "I won't take it, but try my backup MXs" should be shot, along with the author(s) and the operator(s). viruses will do this regardless of what response you send them. I don't see your point. > I much prefer to blackhole the message - 200 thanks for the spam! sure, but then what happens when bob sends joe an email that just happens to contain a virus, and bob happens to be joe's boss, and when joe doesn't respond, bob fires joe. All because you threw the message away. IMO, messages should never vanish, other than triple bounces. If you aren't going to deliver them, reject them at the door with a 5xx -Jeremy -- Jeremy Kitchen ++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the beginning was The Word and The Word was Content-type: text/plain -- The Word of Bob.
pgp1ZBhZvyiec.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
