Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
Thanks for the response! On Wednesday 08 October 2003 21:23, Philipp Weis wrote:This is certainly true for postmaster, but I think it would be RFC-compliant to reject viruses and spam on abuse or security.Yeah, I think so too. However, rejecting legitimate mail could be scary in either case, for example rejecting a spam complaint to abuse because it looks like spam (I imagine spam complaints are rarely distinguishable from spam...) is a Bad Idea[tm], though spam could never be sent from here.
You may have already visited and read over the ideas presented by rfc-ignorant.org. I wanted to point out the site incase you hadn't because they do have some thoughts on rejecting emails from rfc required email addresses, specifically while they take your point with not rejecting mail to postmaster based on RBL's, they do not list (and in fact I've looked up servers that have been unlisted) for RBL postmaster rejections as long as the rejection states that the sending ip was RBL'd and on which listing.
Currently I'm accepting all but executable attachement emails and letting SpamAssassin wrap it up in a new message if it's spam. Executables get bounced with a "550 please use a non executable file format." I'll go kicking and yelling if someone tells me I'm obligated to accept executable attachments to posmaster. If it weren't for email clients preferring HTML email, I'd be for rejecting all but text only email and email over a couple hundred kilobytes to postmaster, hostmaster, webmaster (www), security, noc and abuse (I don't run news or ftp). Those mailboxes are easy enough targets for filling up on virus and UCE/UBE traffic and thus being too full to accept a legitimate mail.
-- Jacob