[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time

* 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: