Re: OT: Viruses on lists
On Monday 10 May 2004 22:22, Jonathan Matthews wrote:
> Paul Johnson had the gall to say:
> > "Derrick 'dman' Hudson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Almost. murphy generates a bounce and sends it to the list manager
> > > (mailman, majordomo, ezmlm, etc. - I don't know what one murphy is
> > > running). The list manager then counts that against you in its
> > > determination of which addresses are invalid and need to be removed
> > > from the list.
> > It takes quite a few bounces before you get removed, though.
> Does anyone know a definitive figure or rate here?
> > > My choice is to simply drop viruses. I don't expect to have any legit
> > > messages falsely identified as viral, and dropping the message simply
> > > removes waste from the network bandwidth and disk storage of the
> > > world. I see no need to push the bounce back at someone else,
> > > particularly since the offender is rarely the one punished in that
> > > case.
> Drop /after/ accepting? Would that not mark you (in the virus' eyes,
> anyway) as a potential target? What with viruses having their own
> builtin SMTP engines these days and hence knowing for sure what response
> was given to the SMTP session, is that not potentially inviting future,
> smarter viruses (with memories for this sort of thing) to hit you first?
> > Which is why I reject at SMTP. Doesn't push a bounce back to forged
> > addresses.
> I should have said - I've followed Paul's instructions on ursine.ca to
> set this up, and am consequently rejecting at SMTP time.
> I'm unsure as to the difference between accepting a mail and bouncing
> later and rejecting at SMTP time as far as murphy is concerned. (I'm
> fine with the general difference for normal mail.) Can anyone venture
> an opinion? Do both bounces (is it correct to call a 5xx reject a
> "bounce"?) count similarly negatively when working out who shouldn't be
> on the list anymore? Should I stop asking questions (sort of like this
> one?) inside other questions?
> Answers on a postcard, please ...
"I" am rejecting at smtp. bouncing back, as said, seldom punishes the
offender. like it that way: no trouble up till now. hardly spam.