Hi,
RH> i don't know the UK laws but in germany it's for sure not allowed
RH> because it's legally classified identical to a postman says "meh i
don't
RH> walk to go upstairs today and throw the letter away"
RH> if you pretend to provide relieable mailservices it should be
logically
RH> that discard instead reject so that none of both parties can take
notice
RH> in case of false positives is not that smart
Better go tel MS as that's exactly what hotmail and live do
because others do wrong is not a good justification
I hoped I could ask for a little more of an explanation.
I'm willing to rely on RBLs and postscreen to make outright reject
decisions, but I'm not sure I want spamassassin/amavisd doing that.
Silently quarantining viruses and spam is how it's been done here for a
while.
So this method eliminates the content_filter configuration in postfix,
where the messages are queued.
I can see this new method being suitable for smaller networks, but
without any queuing capability, how does it scale?
Also, if there is even a temporary interruption in amavis' ability to
operate, mail will be rejected.
Do large scale operators implement this proxy filter approach, and if
so, aren't there any problems with processing times?
It seems the real advantage to doing it this way is the ability to
quickly reject mail not already rejected by zen/postscreen/etc. Is that
really such a big benefit?
And not even all spam would be rejected - only those you felt were over
a predetermined threshold, correct? Why not just quarantine it all,
giving the user the ability to determine if they want to go looking for it?
Thanks,
Alex
