Gordon Peterson wrote:
BUT it is also VERY frustrating when, for example, I find that an
absolutely legitimate e-mail message I have sent out gets bounced back
to me by someone enroute, containing something like:
[quote]
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 554 The message was rejected because it contains
prohibited virus or spam content (in reply to end of DATA command)
[end quote]
Then most of your concern should evaporate if the message said this:
This is the mail delivery agent at <redacted>
I was not able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
<redacted(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>:
<redacted(_at_)nortel(_dot_)com>:
47.248.0.48 failed after I sent the message.
Remote host said: 552 Blocked by filters. If in error, please forward
the Session ID: 1231875923(_dot_)136530000117(_at_)ecarhea1) to
<redacted>@nortel.com
ONLY (#5.7.1)
Instead. [I redacted the userids because that's a _real_ reject message.]
...and particularly when the message contains neither virus nor spam,
and where I have not the slightest idea of who I would need to try to
contact (and where, or how) to solve the non-delivery problem.
See above.
And I presume that the addressee I was sending the mail to has similarly
no idea of who they would need to complain to about our mail being
intercepted and waylaid enroute.
In our case, you'd presume incorrectly.
Given the choice, I like the simplicity and correctability of people
enroute delivering the mail as requested, and having the recipient's
mail client (given the additional knowledge that only it has!) doing the
BETTER possible job of deciding how to perform the triage.
It's been our experience that the recipients all too often lack the
experience and technical knowledge to do the triage in the most
dangerous emails. By far the majority of our users want _us_ to stop
the crap.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg