Some really newbie quesitons.

[Matt Kettler]

At 04:16 PM 5/28/2004, Kevin Spicer wrote:
>I think its more correct to say that by rejecting at the SMTP layer you
>push the bounce one step further upstream.

Alright, I agree with that.

>  In many cases this will be
>the originating server (which is fine) but this can also be another
>innocent server (e.g. for people who use a store and forward service for
>secondary MX).

True.

>  Its important to understand that whilst rejecting at
>SMTP level is better than sending a bounce it still causes problems for
>many people.

True. Of course, keep in mind that my entire statement on using rejection
is qualified by an "If you must..."

However, as far as damage goes, given that undeliverable addresses will
also generate 550's you're pretty much always going to have the problem of
returns from "one step further upstream". By 5xx ing spam you're creating
no greater scale of problems than would otherwise exist for the Joe job
victim than if you did no spam scanning at all. They're going to have to
deal with floods from all relays and forwarders involved anyway.

Sure you're increasing the volume from the upstream server, but that server
is going to be dumping tons of DSN's anyway, and will likely end up being
blocked or procmailed to trash by the joe job victim.

-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send    leave mailscanner    to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/     and the archives at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html