> On Mon 2007-02-26 16:41:40 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > No, I didn't copy/paste anything - I only quoted the email as it came to > > me
On 28.02.07 14:07, David Hart wrote: > My mistake. You didn't copy/paste from an earlier email but you did > move some attribution lines from their usual place. Why not leave > them where (most?) people would expect to find them? to have mail formatted/quoted properly acording to inline-posting (not top-posting nor bottom-posting... like this one. > > > I am NOT asking about the advantages of smtp time rejection. > > > The second of my paragraphs above make it quite clear that I do that > > > myself on my own MXs but that I do it BEFORE receiving the message DATA. > > > > actually, there is a small difference between "receiving the message" and > > "receiving the message data", and maybe this is the reason why most people > > don't understand each other when talking about this issue. > > I assumed in my previous mail that you know about the main parts in an > ordinary smtp conversation: HELO ... MAIL FROM: ... RCPT TO: ... DATA. > Am I wrong to assume this? You're right, I know this... However I did not want to tell you that you're wrong, just wanted to make things a bit clear: You don't have to receive the message to be able to filter, you need to accept the data, and then tou may reject the message. Saves a bit of bandwidth, although not as much as rejecting after helo/mail_from/rcpt_to. > > > > Especially if you would bounce the e-mail, you'll win this way... > > > > > > You should not bounce SPAM once you have accepted it for delivery. > > > > And that is, why you win when you'll reject the spam instead of bouncing > > it. > > Bouncing the spam after you've accepted it is not an option. Actually, I think that rfc requires you to do that. and in some case you should do that. In such case, in order to avoid problems, you must make sure that the message is OK (not spam/virus/phish etc). > > > SPAMMERS USE BOGUS RETURN ADDRESSES. If you do, YOU become part of > > > the problem and the likely outcome is that either some innocent third > > > party finds it in her inbox (which may well have been flooded with > > > bounces from elsewhere) or your mail queue fills up with MAILER-DAEMON > > > messages that keep retrying until they time out several days later. > > > You may even end up bouncing the spam to yourself, but then, that IS > > > entirely your own problem. > > > > You accused me of not reading your message, but I have the feeling now you > > didn't read mine... > > I did _not_ accuse you of not reading my message. I _did_ ask you > to _re-read_ three of my paragraphs because it seemed to me that you > had overlooked or misunderstood what I had written. what I've said is, that if server rejects the mail at SMTP level, it does not have to bounce, which is good. The bounce (or dropping the bounce) is up to sender in such case. my sentence was: "Especially if you would bounce the e-mail, you'll win this way..." which means that just because spams (and viruses) use bogus return addresses, so they should not be bounced. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
