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

Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam

This one time, at band camp, Mike Bird said:
> On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 10:42, Juha-Matti Tapio wrote:
> > I think this is the worst possible way to handle full mailboxes. I think
> > that if the message is accepted for delivery to local mailbox, it is better
> > to bite the bullet and just deliver it. If I send someone email, I would
> > expect that if the servers are up and they accept the mail, it does not
> > silently sleep in the queue for days. If there are warning bounces and a
> > rejection bounce, the backscatter problem keeps on multiplying and if there
> > are no warnings, the sender will falsely believe that the message has been
> > delivered.
> A quota which is not enforced is not a quota.  Without user
> quotas you are susceptible to a single accidental or
> deliberate DOS attack blocking email for all users instead of
> a small number.

You have entirely failed to miss the point.  Once you have accepted a
message, you are wasting disk space _now_, so there is no point keeping
the message in the mail spool as opposed to in the users mail box.

The point is to know that the user's mail box is full and _not accept
any more_ messages for that user.  Creating backscatter because you
can't configure your organizations mail spool so that the left hand
knows about the right hand is still bad form.

Take care,
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: