On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 14:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > but you're definitely skating on thin ice if you set > MaxRecipientsPerMessage > > to less than 100. > > OK, since we're adjusting how we all look at mail as we deal with spam > filtering, maybe this is one thing that should be tweaked. Allowing each > recipient to set their own rules (which is why we have stream by > recipient) should be integral in the new world of SMTP. By requiring us > to accept up to 100 recipients per email limits this.
The question is, how much extra work can you expect the sending relay to do to accommodate your scanning quirks? You can always insert your own relay in the transport that accepts multiple addresses and forwards one address at a time like qmail does. You will just have to construct your own bounces for the users that want things rejected instead of being able to push that work off on the sending relay. I suppose you could use some virtual machine tricks to make every individual appear to be on a different host if you really want to keep the rest of the world from grouping addresses. -- Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
