On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:41:37PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote: > On 6/29/06 10:40 AM, "Robert Millan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > E.g., I don't think anyone would want to use this for his main address (the > > one > > in his From: headers), but if he has other addresses that are obsolete > > and/or > > barely used, but still generate a lot of traffic (spam), in this situation > > 551 > > codes would be suitable. > > > > A spammed address would be a case where 551 isn't suitable (or won't be for > long). Do we really want it to be worth while to the spammers and phishers > to learn to understand "Joe isn't here, he moved to the trailer down the > road--go break his leg there"?
The question is that you could have an MTA with lots of delivery-time checks in recipient side, but you can't take advantage of them if the spammer doesn't attempt to delivery their stuff directly. So it's more like: "I don't have a bat to beat you here, but Joe is in the trailer down the road. Go there and get your leg broken." -- Robert Millan -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
