-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Nicol wrote:
On 1/22/07, Daniel Feenberg <feenberg(_at_)nber(_dot_)org> wrote:
There is a surprising omissions - No mention of the superiority of
rejection during the SMTP processing over discarding or delivering to a
spam folder. Or did I miss it somewhere?
I think that kind of detail is deliberately left out of the document which
is designed to live at a high level immune from implementation details.
Avoiding blowback is not a mere implementation detail. Yes, it can be
inferred by the remarks about "not impacting others", but given the
problem that it does represent in practise suggests that something more
explicit needs to be said. At least to the point of "don't bounce spam
and viruses".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBRbVkuJ3FmCyJjHfhAQJg7gQAx81uXMTZCImk8U2KN+4v3ClcQ/lqb4ac
O/kDqZBFrjqlozwUZsRzwJ2biBfzdYOJTl222CPzls5S0vHI3HNoaMLBkOSgwCJ7
BEkFBdpyUhaaANnuqy11X2216JK1XuVOwRsD8MwqBssNmXejW3mCxq7UEyDip6YF
H2jUGzTV1OA=
=Zs7Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg