On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:51:10PM +0000, Tim Cutts wrote: > On 15 Nov 2005, at 2:34 pm, Steve Langasek wrote: > > No: there is nothing "proper" about rejecting mail from a host > > that you have configured to forward mail for you. > > I can see where you're coming from, but it's unavoidable, isn't it? > Most of us probably have "accounts" which forward email to us, and > over which we have no control; for example in my case I have two, one > at debian.org, and one at Cambridge University (cantab.net), as well > as any number of mailing lists. If those upstream sources are more > lax about spam than the downstream SMTP receiver (whether chiark or > something else) then this sort of thing is inevitable.o
Personally I have sa-exim SMTP reject viruses and high scoring spam, but if the message has precedence "bulk" or "list" then I discard it silently instead, in order to try and cut down on the number of sitations where my users will infuriate hosts that forward mail to them. Many MLMs will automatically kick you off the lists if you reject viruses they sent to you (hi, Phillipp Kern). It's not possible to catch everything though (users can set up forwards without my knowledge; they also can't predict which addresses will get lots of spam/malware), neither would I expect to be told I have to accept delivery of this email. In an ideal world both sides would be able to come to some arrangement that doesn't involve blackholing.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
