Mon Sep 22 12:11:49 PDT 2003
On Monday 22 September 2003 01:47 pm, Matthew Galgoci wrote:
> > > > 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.
But that's just the point. When you block a virus email at the SMTP
level, you're usually blocking the computer which is actually infected
with the virus. And if it's not, the computer relaying it to you is
an open relay, which you shouldn't be accepting email from anyway.
If you block an infected computer from sending you a message and it
decides to redirect that refusal to another server, how is that
different from it simply accepting the refusal and moving on to try to
send another virus to another user (which it probably will do anyway,
because the extra code isn't worth writing into the virus)? That
doesn't add to the problem; it just eliminates it from affecting your
More information about the linux-elitists