MTAs denying messages (was: Re: Moderated posts?)

[lee <lee@yagibdah.de>]

Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes:

> (But in this case, absolutely requiring a response would be building a
> DOS and potential privacy vulnerability into the message
> infrastructure. The RFCs really should be stored with a summary of
> relevant comments.)

Could you explain how an MTA would create a privacy vulnerability or
expose itself to DOS attacks by not accepting messages?

For example, my MTA does not accept messages that have an empty Subject:
header.  How does that expose my privacy or allow for DOS attacks?


-- 
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us.  Finally, this fear has become reasonable.