* Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes ("Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time"):
> > * Andy Smith (andy@lug.org.uk) wrote:
> > > a) inflict bounce spam scatter on the forged from addresses in the
> > > malware and spam he doesn't want to accept delivery for; or
> ...
> > 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.
>
> The problem with no-one sending bounces is that _legitimate_ mail
> which is _mistakenly_ tagged as spam just vanishes.
<Shrug> Life's a beach. I don't think creating huge numbers of bounces
is better than this. Make no mistake, that's what you're doing, even
though you're making other systems do it for you it's your fault they're
happening.
> So if I have my system say `250' to a piece of mail, I'm guaranteeing
> that either I'll bounce it (and get a `250' on the bounce), or that
> some human (me or someone else I know) will read it.
Sure, so say '250' and then bounce it if you want to later. That's
basically the *point* here. master's forwarding the mail for you, you
should accept it and then you can decide to either read it yourself or
bounce it. You do *not* need master to bounce it for you!
> The only practical solution to this problem in the modern environment
> is to never accept mail that you don't want. Unfortunately master's
> policies make it impossible for me to arrange to do that. I can do
> what I can, though, and try to push the problem closer to the place
> where it can be solved.
Blacklisting obviously has its own problems. It's your choice to do it
but don't do it to hosts who are forwarding mail to you. If you can't
figure out which hosts are forwarding to you and which aren't then
either don't blacklist or don't run a mail server.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature