On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:31:26 +0100, "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > wrote on Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:09:53 -0800: > > > People with high accuracy requirements would disagree with you. For some > > people, including me, false positive rates for straight RBL rejection > > are unacceptable. I simply can't use straight RBL rejection. Not an > > option. > > You didn't get my point. It's useless if not harmful to bounce a message > after you already got it in full. Full stop.
You can reject with 5XX without bouncing even after you receive the message in full. I'm not talking about bouncing. Rejecting! Rejecting! For me, the cost of a false positive FAR exceeds what the extra bandwidth costs me to download the body of the message before making the decision of whether to accept or reject the message. > I agree that combining the both mathematically should be more accurate, > but it needs a *multitude* of system ressources and traffic in exchange for > an accuracy increase which is almost not measurable. No good deal in my > eyes. The accuracy increase is very measurable. If a false positive isn't that big a deal for you, fine. All I'm saying is that for some people, it really is that important, and for us the accuracy increase is worth far more than the cost of bandwidth and processing the extra data. > Anyway, if you like to go this way, fine, but that doesn't change the > fact that bouncing stuff you already have taken in full is bad. It's *no* > advantage to you but maybe a burden to others. I don't see any > rectification for that. 1) It's a *huge* advantage for me. Our e-mail filtering accuracy is very important to us, and using SA to scan the message body makes a big difference. 2) I don't see how the difference between sending a 5XX after receiving the message body is more of a burden on others than sending a 5XX before receiving the message body. Please enlighten me. I'm paying for the extra bandwidth that's used. My ISP pays their upstream for the extra bandwidth used, and so on. It's just extra business for them, I'm sure they're happy to see it. -- snowjack(a)fastmail.fm
