spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Digest 1.210 for spf-discuss

2004-03-08 08:17:41
At 07:56 PM 3/7/2004 -0500, you wrote:
From: Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex(_at_)ergens(_dot_)op(_dot_)het(_dot_)net>
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Digest 1.209 for spf-discuss
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 19:18:43 +0100

The spammer can send the garbage, sure.  That doesn't mean I have to
listen to it.  For instance, postfix doesn't store and process the
message once it determines the message is rejected.  Sure, bandwidth
is wasted but at least you get to save on i/o, disk and cpu power.

Now, if spammers wouldn't pay attention to the reply to DATA, this
would actually be a good thing.  Rejecting after "rcpt to" might
mean they try again and again and again.  If they don't do that when
I postpone the reject until after DATA, I would seriously consider it.

Legitimate senders would get a DSN after their message is rejected
(except when they're using crappy MTA software) just like when I reject
after "rcpt to".

cheers,
Alex
-- 
*********************** REPLY SEPARATER **********************
Actually, what I object to most is any system that encourages the receiver
to bounce the message instead of rejecting it immediately. That is the only
way to cut down on all the useless traffic that is currently being
generated. Because CallerID encourages background bouncing of email to the
spoofed return address, I still say that it is inherantly flawed; but that
is my opinion only.

J.A. Coutts


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>