On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:08:10 -0500 Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> replied:
> Jerry wrote: > > > > You don't want to bounce the message, yet you are telling the sender > > that it was not delivered. That is inconsistent. Why not simply > > send a notice to the email originator that the message was > > quarantined? That would be consistent and factually correct. > > > > It's not inconsistent at all. That's what you're supposed to do with > mail you know you can't deliver at SMTP-time. The sender's mail > server sees the "550", and reports the non-delivery to him or her. > > Accept-and-bounce has been frowned upon for some time; it's called > backscatter and will make you a bad person: > > http://www.backscatterer.org/?target=backscatter > > Furthermore, almost all virus mail has a forged sender, so this is a > particularly bad place to accept-and-bounce. Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, you want a copy of the message. Is that correct? If so, you have in fact accepted the message no matter how you try to word it. If you then tell the originator of the message that it was not accepted, that would be factually incorrect. At no point did I suggest implementing a 'backscatter' routine. You really only have two options: 1) bounce the message 2) accept it and set up routing rules for questionable mail. -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com |::::======= |::::======= |=========== |=========== | Execute every act of thy life as though it were thy last. Marcus Aurelius _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
