On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 11:21 +0200, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme writes:
but you don't answer my question, what is gained by doing reject?
SMTP rejection is the good way to let unlucky senders know about false
positives.
If you only reject (ie. you don't secretly store), reject sometimes also
lets you out of storage rules. For example, here in Germany HGB§257 may
(AFAIK there have been no test cases) require businesses to store
certain categories of email for a number of years. The safe ways to
deal with that are a) to store all mail for that long, even the spam,
b) have some human pick out the false positives from the spam and
determine what must be stored, and c) reject the presumed spam at SMTP
time, so it's not received in the first place.
in case it wasn't clear, I fully agree with this. we really want to do
reject as much as possible, it's the secret store I object to.
--
Kjetil T.