Jason Haar wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:09:39PM -0500, Dallas L. Engelken wrote: >> First of all, this is not a debate... > > I think it is.
yeah, me too. :) We're trying to convince you to include the ability to return a 550 from q-s. Sounds like a debate to me. > I think this is *exactly* the place to debate such things. Where else > should such thing be discussed? > >> Personally, I 550 for the simple fact that its less overhead than >> forking a call to qmail-queue to inject (a|several) custom crafted >> notification message. Does that make it better? Maybe.. Maybe not. >> It depends what you are comparing I guess! > > That is the only real positive argument I have ever seen for this. Have you not been reading my replies? False positives, man! I personally could care less if we fork a call to qmail-queue. I just don't want one of my business customers losing email without realizing it. > It is ever-so-slightly more resource efficient. However, as I know that only 2% > of our e-mail is viruses (owch - I just looked that up - that's a lot > higher than I thought!), the "extra resource" required really is tiny. I > realise that's very site-dependent... The reality is all of our queues are > stuffed full of bounced SPAM - not virus alerts... > >> Loosen up man... > > Gotta be kidding. I'm runnin' on coffee this week... -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest 6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click _______________________________________________ Qmail-scanner-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general