How would rejecting help the Sobig.F worm over discard? With reject, since it spoofs email addresses, it causes a bigger mess, bouncing back to somone who didn't even send it...
Richard At 06:32 PM 8/30/2003 -0700, you wrote: >You're confused about how reject, discard, and hold work. Better to not >respond then to give mis-information. > >Reject = refuse delivery, sending MTA must handle bounce >Discard = receive the message and then silently delete it >Hold = receive the message and place in "hold" queue for further review and >processing > >Bill >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Richard Bewley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 6:21 PM >Subject: [IMGate] Re: Reject and discard > > > >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
