On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:08:34 -0600 "@lbutlr" <krem...@kreme.com> wrote:
> There is a difference between ___block___ and ___silently discard___. > Blocking is fine, silently discarding is just evil and should be > illegal everywhere. Nonsense. Silently discarding is sometimes the only sensible thing to do. If you have users with different spam settings (or perhaps some who have opted-out of spam-scanning completely), there's no sensible way to handle a multi-recipient message. You either have to tempfail all recipients after the first so you can process with each recipient's settings during SMTP, which is horrible, or you have to generate DSNs for the recipients who reject the message, which will get you blacklisted as a backscatterer. > You can reject who you want in Germany too, you just can___t delete a > message that you___ve already accepted. What does "accepted" mean? Redirecting a message to /dev/null means you didn't accept it. I used to be in the "never silently discard camp", but unfortunately the email environment has become so hostile that I can no longer keep the promise of the original SMTP that a message is either delivered or the sender notified of non-delivery. Promising that in every single case is, alas, no longer feasible. Regards, David.