* Andy Smith (andy@lug.org.uk) 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature