On 7/22/2010 2:18 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:48 -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 7/22/2010 1:13 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
Yes, I do maintain some home systems like that. With freemailers or ISP
accounts it often isn't possible any other way. Polling interval of a
minute or two.
And if everyone polled every minute or 2 then the server would melt
down. You should be polling every 5 or better yet every 10. But in
any case why are you advocating a hack like this? Your last post
advocated NOT a hack but in doing it right. In every instance of a
fetchmail setup the biggest loss is that you cannot issue an error
5xx to a spammer.
Ted, I believe you're thinking too large-scale.
I may be wrong, but I understand Neil is talking about a single, ISP
provided email address.
OK, I missed that, I was assuming he had a vanity domain, (.us or some
such)
In that case then yes, your correct, the fetchmail/getmail/etc. solution
is probably the only way to hack around it.
Of course, I would point out that if your ISP is doing a poor
job of scanning for spam, that your REWARDING your ISP by continuing
to maintain an e-mail address on their mailserver - thus INSURING that
they have NO incentive to do a better job. And yes I know that in
some areas the ISP is a monopoly. In the United States we unfortunately
have an FCC that has voted to NOT regulate broadband providers (a
legacy of our last good-for-nothing President and his deregulating
ways, which precipitated the current economic collapse, but that's
another story)
As for the "freemail" servers, well as they are giving it to you free,
you can't really complain. ;-) I guess what's going on here is few
pennies you are saving on paying for decent mail, your spending
dollars of our own time cobbling together a workaround. To each
his own!
Ted
Just about the same as any Gmail, Yahoo or GMX
address. There is NO way for a 5xx SMTP response. In fact, he was
explicitly talking about an IMAP account, so the mail has been delivered
already. Nothing can be done about that. Except better filtering and
delivering spam to a dedicated folder to keep the Inbox clean.
That is why I "advocated" a hack like that. Which I didn't even do,
because it was implied by the OP. ;)
I merely described better ways of implementing what is required, what
Neil had in mind, and prevent client side filtering.
