--On 3 October 2008 15:30:08 -0400 Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeroen van Aart wrote: >> >> "Bounces should only be sent if the receiver knows they'll be "usefully >> delivered." This is code for: Don't sent bounces when your system >> rejects spam or virus traffic, or you'll become an Internet pariah." >> >> That sounds nice in theory. But how can you ever in a sane manner >> determine with reasonable certainty a bounce will be usefully delivered? >> If you try to make this work it makes it also more likely legitimate >> bounces will not be sent out. Which in turns conflicts with: >> >> "Silently discarding messages is not prohibited, but it is strongly >> discouraged." >> >> Or am I missing something totally obvious? > > Yes. It means, "reject spam at SMTP time, not by accepting and bouncing. > Only accept messages at SMTP time that you believe you can successfully > deliver." > > - Marc I think it's a bit more subtle than that. You can determine with reasonable certainty whether a bounce message can be delivered to a local user. So, I think this means: If this is inbound email, with a remote sender, then reject at SMTP time if you don't want to deliver it. If it's a local submission, then you may prefer to accept then bounce. Why would you prefer to accept, then bounce? Because some MUAs (eg, PHP scripts) don't handle rejection very well. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
