cannot implement all processing and reject in DATA phase, then
well... there it is...
work on it...
your next post says you sometimes have to reject after... and i quote you
---
Charles Gregory Quote:Re: [sa] Re: SMTP REJECT after DATA
The only efficiency to be gained is to reject as much as possible
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
and you find it doesn't make sense to spam-scan messages and
reject them in/after DATA stage in a real world scenario.
You ignore my arguments. Hardly surprising.
You reword yours, but say nothing new.
It makes only sense if you are die-hard
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Andy Dorman wrote:
So even if we can decide an email is spam before the DATA stage, it
makes no difference since we have to store the thing for a while anyway
in case the user wants to look for something caught that shouldn't be.
(nod) To rely on this methodology requires
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, David Morton wrote:
Charles Gregory wrote:
Indeed, it makes far LESS sense to have a system accept mail but send it
to a spam folder.
Maybe in your particular situation, but you can hardly apply that to
everyone
(nod) It was subject to the conditions I consider 'wide
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have them
believe it was delivered when it was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Gregory wrote:
You are not misguided, and neither am I. We just have different situations.
Hmm... policy. Sounds a lot like a feature of postfix, doesn't it?
LOL... And not at all 'misguided' :)
Wait, stop the presses! An
Charles Gregory wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
There are other reasons not to do this, for instance legal ones.
Again, you are quoting arguments that favor SMTP reject. It is
better to
reject a mail, so that legitimate senders know it, rather than have
them
believe
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
It is NOT illegal to break a contract.
It's called 'fraud'. Look it up.
No, sorry, it's NOT fraud. Fraud requires proving an intentional
misrepresentation.
Well duh. Did you think I meant something else?
Breaking a contract does not imply that
