>> >> Diego Pomatta wrote: >> > But is not qmail's job to detect spam >> >> True. >> >> > or tell the sender what the >> > problem was; >> >> True only for your local site policy; most people who reject spam would >> like to let the sender know so legitimate senders can rearrange their >> message to try again. More generally, it's usually a good idea to >> include *some* kind of information about why you rejected the message if >> you reject an email message at the MTA layer. >> >> qmail makes this much more difficult that pretty much any other MTA.
as another qmail user, may I put this straight: qmail does not pass an individual message to the sender, just a selection of predetermined messages (temporary problem, prohibited, whatnot) You are free to add something like "554 your message is considered excessively spammy" to the list of predetermined messages. You cannot send the actual spam score >> >> qmail, as provided by DJB, is nearly unusable in today's email >> environment IMO. The fact that we need spamassassin, antivirus, and the like to integrate into other mailers seems to indicate that they are not much better .... >> > qmail is just the MTA, and a damn fine one imho. >> > A filter/scanner/anti-spam tool has to do that. >> >> If you're going to notify senders about spam or virus content, the time >> to do it is before your mail system has sent a "250 OK" reply to the >> message's DATA segment. Accepting the message then constructing a >> (new!) rejection message to send back generates backscatter, and is >> likely to get your system blacklisted locally by sysadmins everywhere if >> you do this. >> >> It is genereally known as bad practice, and has been told over and over again, to bounce messages. If the discussion is about the response to the DATA phase (as it should be), you are free to modify that piece of perl code that drives mail scanning in a way that it sends on the message (with subject changed, or otherwise modified) AND tell the sender that it has permfailed Wolfgang Hamann
