--On Friday, April 26, 2002 1:25 PM -0700 julesa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Valid points have been brought up on all sides. Just adding my $0.02: > > From an administrative standpoint, it is *not* all right to lose > potentially legitimate mail without notifying the sender, unless every > user on your system has been made FULLY aware of the risk and agrees > with the policy. That's almost impossible unless you're in a very small > office. People just don't understand the issues. Believe it or not, > e-mail is used for more important communication than sending recipes and > copies of the BOFH files to your buddies. True, it does suck to loose legitimate Mail. But if on the condition the server is setup right, responds first with a proper helo or ehlo, is resolving and sends all the proper commands, it wont be rejected. Usually you dont have a mail server that does not resolve. A decently setup Exchange server can send mail to me. (decently as in resolves and knows it's own hostname). Sendmail is fine, so is postfix, and qmail. Believe it or not i rarely loose any email. > > From a technical/efficiency standpoint, sieve should not have to check > an external source of information before delivering a message. Inserting > a header, and then letting the user use Sieve to either reject the > messages, accept them, or file them into a Spam folder is the correct > approach, IMHO. Honestly i forsee the thought of Sieve having to check each message as it comes in, as a huge process and having to resolve the hosts and everything just compounds things. Sieve is not a MTA, and i wish people would think about the processing power it might take for their choice. That's all. > > -Jules > > On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 12:36, Scott M Likens wrote: >> --On Friday, April 26, 2002 9:56 AM +0200 Luca Olivetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > Well, that's you. Maybe your users don't agree. Maybe they don't even >> > *know* that they are losing *legitimate* email if you use some careless >> > rbl blackole (like the maps llc service -- I know, I've been >> > blackholed for a while just because I dared to use an ADSL line to >> > send my emails). If the policy you enforce affects you and only you, >> > that's fine with me. If you are imposing your policies to unsuspecting >> > user, which will likely lose legitimate emails without ever knowing >> > it, that's wrong. Let the MTA mark the messages and let the users >> > decide. >> >> Well knowing i still get legitimate mail from .hotmail.com and other >> legitimate users i dont see a problem. All my users are /QUITE/ Happy >> with the changes. I notify them if there is any dropped mails and if >> they want i even go as far as added that mail server into the Postfix >> 'access' DB and allowing it to pass thru. Which makes them happy. >> >> I feel this way, If you want service with a Junk Mail box to determine >> if it's spam or not, go sign up for hotmail. I dont need the server >> littered with thousands of pieces of SPAM clogging both the network and >> the disk drive. >> >> What happens if you get 500+ Spam a day and you dont check for 3days. >> Then you have 500*3 sitting in your Inbox to check. Now i dont know >> about you but i would rm my mailbox and start over. I have no desire >> to go over 2000 messages or 1500, or 400, or 30 trying to figure out >> what is legit or what is not. >> >> If it passes thru the filters it has a decent chance of being solicited >> 'SPAM'. and that's just fine for me. If the users want it great. >> >> But dropping 2,000+messages a day due to my filters for just 3 users i >> am taking into account, is a great thing. Ask anyone. >> >> Your thinking to yourself if i do that i'll loose business. To me it's >> as simple as if they dont want my service that is their choice. There >> is tons of fish in the sea willing to pay money for a service that >> works well, that works fast, and doesnt have a clogged email. >> >> If you want those Junk mail boxes, please see www.hotmail.com and signup >> today! >> >> >> > > >
