Mon Sep 22 11:47:41 PDT 2003
> > > On the contrary; if you block the message at the SMTP level, the
> > > sender gets an error. The blocking error message should include
> > > something intelligible on why the message was rejected, and the
> > > sender can fix that problem with their message and resend.
> > You assume 1) the sender is valid and 2) the sender is the address
> > of the responsible party. Neither of these are necessarily the case
> > for virus type spam.
> You call yourself an elitist, and you don't even know what really
> happens when you reject email at the SMTP level?
I know what happens. I would sooner /dev/null virus spam than block spam with
a 550. Innocent bystanders be darned. Hopefully not many though, since the regexes
would be very specific.
What I don't care to generate is return to sender bounce messages that go to people
that didn't send a virus to begin with. I assert that the bounce messages, just in
sheer volume, are as bad as the virus spam that caused them.
Of course this is my opinion, and not the practice at work.
Matthew Galgoci "If you were a woman I'd kiss you right now."
Red Hat, Inc
More information about the linux-elitists