On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 16:59 -0700, Andrew Daviel wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > [Though in reality, you should really just discard spam messages > > instead of rejecting them.] > > The whole point of a milter IMO is that you can reject suspicious mail > without your MTA generating a message back to a probably bogus return > address. Not if it is done at the SMTP level (my whole purpose for trying this milter). It gives a 55x before accepting the message so the sending MTA is aware at that point.
In an era where bounce messages, joe-jobs and backscatter are as bad as the spam problem itself realistically you have the option to silently drop (genuine sender never knows in case of FP) or SMTP fail it (genuine senders knows more or less instantaneously). I know which of those I prefer. It does put a large load on a mail server to do it this way - usually needing some clustering and powerful hardware in a large production environment. For a small business (where every mail could mean the difference between sinking or swimming) it should scale OK. That's what I'm looking at. _______________________________________________ Spamass-milt-list mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/spamass-milt-list
