Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism
In article <cistron.Pine.GSO.4.61.0604111656450.15259@pants.snark.net>, Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net> wrote:
.or do you think that TCP/IP connection should be held open until the message can be scanned for spam and viruses just so we can give a 550 MESSAGE REJECTED error instead of silently dropping it?
absolutely. is that actually a problem, today, in 2006?
RCPT TO: <user1@domain> RCPT TO: <user2@domain> DATA . .. after content scanning, user1 wants the mail, user2 doesn't. Now what ? Mike.
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article <cistron.Pine.GSO.4.61.0604111656450.15259@pants.snark.net>, Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net> wrote:
.or do you think that TCP/IP connection should be held open until the message can be scanned for spam and viruses just so we can give a 550 MESSAGE REJECTED error instead of silently dropping it?
absolutely. is that actually a problem, today, in 2006?
RCPT TO: <user1@domain> RCPT TO: <user2@domain> DATA .
.. after content scanning, user1 wants the mail, user2 doesn't. Now what ?
Mike.
Three choices Screw user1 Screw user2 Screw sender by dropping user2 from recipient list Its only on the third choice that you have to decide whether or not to notify the sender with a bounce. A patched sendmail can prevent a milter from performing a reject of an email as requested by a milter, if some of the recipients do not want the protection offered.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article <cistron.Pine.GSO.4.61.0604111656450.15259@pants.snark.net>, Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net> wrote:
[ someone else wrote, but Miquel failed to attribute: ]
.or do you think that TCP/IP connection should be held open until the message can be scanned for spam and viruses just so we can give a 550 MESSAGE REJECTED error instead of silently dropping it?
absolutely. is that actually a problem, today, in 2006?
RCPT TO: <user1@domain> RCPT TO: <user2@domain> DATA .
.. after content scanning, user1 wants the mail, user2 doesn't. Now what ?
Gosh gomer, is 2821 not available in Books On Tape format? matto --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
Matt Ghali <matt@snark.net> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: [...]
.. after content scanning, user1 wants the mail, user2 doesn't. Now what ? Gosh gomer, is 2821 not available in Books On Tape format?
Aww, but reading is *hard*! The simple answer is that RFCs discuss mechanism, and the BOFH decides the policy. As BOFH, I apply the union of the spamfiltering rules selected by the recipients. 2xx/4xx/5xx is given in response to the final period, so false positives are reported to the sender who will presumably resend to the failed recipients if it's anything important. The reasoning for my policy is that by having multiple recipients, it's already starting to look a bit pink, and the user that's explicitly asked to not receive spam cares more than those who have expressed no opinion. Nobody has yet asked to be opted *out* of the spam filtering. -- When you have a thermic lance, everything looks like hours of fun. - Christian Wagner <cwagner@io.com> in the Monastery
participants (4)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
Joe Maimon -
Matt Ghali -
Miquel van Smoorenburg