Robert Millan wrote: > 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."
So how long before this gets abused as a form of EXPN or VRFY? Which FWIW gets turned off with prejudice at most sites if modern mail servers these days even support those commands. Ian -- Ian Freislich -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
