I think reject is the better way to go when filtering spam, though maybe not as good as hold, but there are some good reasons to use discard, like with the Sobig.F, where bounced messages were just adding to the mess.
Richard At 04:17 AM 8/31/2003 +0200, you wrote: >In addition to letting know the connecting SMTP server that the email did >not go through and got rejected. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Bill Landry >Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:17 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [IMGate] Re: Reject and discard > > > >Reject = don't accept delivery >Discard = Receive and delete > >I would prefer reject, if you don't want the message anyway. It will save >on bandwidth and processing. > >Bill >----- Original Message ----- >From: "DustyC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "IMGate List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 5:34 PM >Subject: [IMGate] Reject and discard > > > >Had anyone played with the DISCARD feature for access maps and/or >header/body checks? I was just curious if there was any CPU advantage to >discarding incoming trojans versus rejecting them? > >DustyC
