On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 16:09 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote: > 1. People who bounce viruses with warning messages (actually, that's fine).
It's not fine to _bounce_ them -- they should be rejected. Generating bounces in responses to viruses is bad. > 2. People who use SRS. I'd like to use it for local people that ask to get > email forwarded from their local (sussex.ac.uk) address to a personal > address. I don't see how SRS can harm anyone when I do this. Perhaps such > email would never hit their honeypots, though. Why would you do SRS unconditionally? If you really must do SRS because a recipient's mail is bouncing and they cannot or will not fix the broken destination to which you're forwarding, _then_ you can enable SRS on mail forwarded to _that_ host/domain, if you really care to work around the recipient's brain damage. But as you say, that would be very unlikely to ever hit the UCEPROTECT honeypot. > 3. People using sender verification callouts. They seem to think it's as > bad as sending email, but my sender verification callouts don't fill > mailboxes or server queues. And, they do stop lots of spam. Yeah, this is just the UCEPROTECT folks being muppets. I'm with Nigel; they're best ignored. -- dwmw2 -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
