Re: OT: sorbs blacklisting scam
On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 15:56, Stephen Gran wrote:
> You have entirely failed to miss the point.
Well I'm glad we agree on one thing.
> 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.
Your mail server has the queue in the same partition as
the mailboxes? Wierd. All that unnecessary quota activity.
> The point is to know that the user's mail box is full and _not accept
> any more_ messages for that user.
You are arguing against providing a safety net. We hold inbound
messages in a queue for several days (space permitting) just like
outbound messages. This is an added-value service which helps
to prevent people from losing email when some twit has filled
their mailbox and someone else is sending from an ISP with a
retry timeout less than a typical human's sleep cycle.
> 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.
This thread has already mentioned numerous cases where
backscatter is unavoidable. Please post your Exim config
which handles such cases without backscatter. If it's
that good, I'll even switch our combination of Postfix,
QMail, and custom SMTP code over to Exim.
--Mike Bird
Reply to: