Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Considering that the real catastrophe is the current level of spam, I
> > don't think we could agree on what exactly a catastrophe is.
> >
> > How about this?
>
> Is there any particular reason why people who want this level of
> draconian spam protection on their own configure their MTAs and/or
> MUAs to incorporate this level of spam termination?
Rejecting messages from open proxies is anything but draconian,
it's the right thing to do.
Not everybody has direct control over their MTA, but we (Debian) have
control over @debian.org email.
Even if I could configure my MTA in whatever way I choose, if mail
addressed to my @debian.org is accepted by master and then forwarded to
me, then I can't no longer generate a SMTP REJECT to the trojaned
Windows machine who sent me the email. If I REJECT a message coming
from master, master would probably bounce it to an innocent party.
If you can't appreciate the subtle difference between a SMTP REJECT
and a BOUNCE, then we've got larger problems than mere spam.
BTW: 2600 spam messages a month is not "mere spam", it's more like a
distributed denial of service attack on debian.org email users.
Reply to: