* Andy Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > You would prefer that Ian: > > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the > malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
That is what he's said he wants to do. What I want him to do is have
*his* servers do it, not make master do it.
> b) silently discards such mails resulting in the possibility of
> legitimate mail being lost; or
>
> c) just accepts the spam/malware?
>
> I'm guessing (b), with the reasoning that if he chooses to reject
> mail that his system thinks is bad then it's his problem to deal
> with any false positives.
It's his choice to do either (a) or (b) or (c). I couldn't care less
which he does provided *he* does it. I do *not* want him to make master
do (a) for him.
> However in this day and age of the unwanted ratio of email being
> greater than the wanted ratio, any system which accepts a lot of
> unwanted email and then fails to deal with the refusal to accept by
> systems further down the line is in real trouble. I do pretty much
> the same as what Ian does, as I have explained, and so do many
> others. It's the best way to deal with such mail: don't accept
> what you're not prepared to deal with.
Don't do this to servers which are forwarding mail to you (upon
request). It's inconsiderate, at best.
> Instead of either side in this debate saying "Not my problem, you
> should do this..." how about reaching some compromise? It sounds
> like in the short term, Ian needs to discard some mail instead of
> rejecting, and in the long term master needs to be able to cope with
> this sort of thing. The absolute worst thing to do is to start
> generating bounces to these forged addresses however.
Erm, that's *exactly* what's happening today though, it's just that
Ian's making master do it instead of doing it himself.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
