[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/24/2004 02:42:33 PM: > Is the vanity domain's mail server at fault in this situation? Should it's > MTA deliver everything in the foreground, holding open the original SMTP > connection and deferring a final response to it until it sees if my server > will accept the message or not? (If so, does this approach scale for sites > that accept a large amount of mail?) Should ".forward" style redirecting be > done away with altogether?
I would say that yes, the vanity server is responsible. It is the one that accepted the virus in the first place. In this day and age, running a mail server without virus protection is asking for trouble. What if the original user sets up a .forward to your server, but then closes his account on your server. Everything that was forwarded to your server would then bounce. I suppose you could hold the user partly responsible in this scenario because he didn't cancel the .forward. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
