rejecting spam at SMTP time [linux-elitists]

Aaron Sherman ajs@ajs.com
Wed Sep 29 08:26:54 PDT 2004


On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 15:14, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:

> > Good things about SMTP-time rejection:
> > 
> > 1. It saves you bandwidth.
> > 
> > 2. It saves you disk space.
> 
> 3. senders of false positives know I didn't receive their message
>    (and won't be wondering why I didn't reply)

Ah... you referred to using SA for this.... if you're using SA, you're
not saving bandwidth. Even if you do the work at SMTP-time, SA requires
the ENTIRE message body before it begins to process (unless something's
changed since the last time I looked at the SA internals).

> > 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.
> 
> hmm, maybe.

I'm not sure this is wise at all. Spam is sucking down gobs of
bandwidth, and we're all paying to maintain that infrastructure.
Especially with the advent of zombie networks, spam is essentially a
surcharge on the net for everyone who uses it (if your ISP has customers
who have zombies on non-metered connections, you're paying for their
spam bandwidth). Please, don't try to "punish" the spammers by letting
them suck money out of your pockets.

-- 
☎ 781-324-3772
✉ ajs@ajs.comhttp://www.ajs.com/~ajs




More information about the linux-elitists mailing list