On 2022-08-13 14:05:43 -0400, joe a wrote: > 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.
Rejecting mail (instead of accepting it and dropping it) is useful in case of false positives. > > 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. > > 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. Well, if you don't reject the mail with the reason that the address is invalid, the spammer could deduce that the address is valid (at least potentially valid). By not rejecting spam, the spammer could think that the spam arrived at its destination and would validate the address. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
