On 8/13/2022 12:38 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
. . .
2) There's no mandatory need to REJECT spam. It has always been up to
the recipient to decide whether to return it to the sender or not.
Agreed in part. I see returning SPAM to sender as an exercise in
futility or perhaps further enabling. But I do prefer labeling as SPAM
to outright rejection in many cases.
3) It would be rather trivial to return spam to sender with a suitable
admonishment but I decided that its not worth my time to write such
a discriminator and maintain yet another set of rules about what gets
quarantined and what gets returned: better to quarantine it so
it can be analysed with the mk 1 eyeball.
Martin
To add my comment, returning SPAM, assuming it even reaches the original
sender, may serve only to assure them of the effectiveness of their
campaign to reach valid addresses. In effect "helping" them.
Opinions vary, of course.
