rejecting spam at SMTP time (was Re: Postfix anti-antivirus (was Re: [linux-elitists] etc))

Don Marti dmarti@zgp.org
Thu Sep 23 11:15:55 PDT 2004


begin  Gerald Oskoboiny quotation of Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:08:50AM -0500:

> I recently started rejecting most incoming mail to my site, and
> it feels great! (anything with SA score > 10 is rejected.)

Good things about SMTP-time rejection:

1. It saves you bandwidth.

2. It saves you disk space.


Bad things about SMTP-time rejection:

1. It gives spammers information about messages that
   definitely aren't making it through.

2. It makes it harder for users to deal with
   false positives.  The user can't just point a
   browser at the webmail interface to the spam bucket
   when the SMTP server never accepted the message.

3. (and this is the big one) It saves spammers
   bandwidth.  Yes, some spammers get bandwidth at
   no charge, but only by criminal means, so its cost
   is in risk, not money.

Sites that can afford the bandwidth and disk space
should avoid SMTP-time rejection, especially if it
would reveal site-specific spam-filtering information
such as spamtrap addresses.


-- 
Don Marti
http://zgp.org/~dmarti
dmarti@zgp.org



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list