On 2022-08-15 11:33:53 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.net> writes: > > 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. > > Be careful in "returning". There is replying with 550 and not accepting > it, which ensures that *you* are not generating backscatter, and there > is sending a bounce later. I think that if you're going to reject it, > you should 550 it.
Yes, this is a 550 SMTP reply. -- 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)
