On Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:01 PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From this point of view it is my opinion that we'd all be better > off if the mail did not get delivered in the first place. This is > why I suggest that adding an additional layer of robustness might > prove useful.
I agree with you, but with a caveat. If you run a SMTP server (incoming MTA), the responsibility you assume for every message you accept is that you will either deliver it to the final recipient or send a notice to the original sender explaining why it couldn't be delivered. Since spam has forged return addresses, it is not possible to send non-delivery notifications. Silently discarding mail that you've accepted breaks the assumptions behind SMTP and makes email less reliable for all of us. The answer is to reject, i.e. not accept in the first place, spam messages during the SMTP transaction. It is then the problem of the sending system as to what to do with the undeliverable message. If stuck with enough of these, they may actually be forced to clean up their act as to what _they_ accept for delivery. In any case, the key is in refusing to accept unwanted mail from the sending system, not accepting and then silently discarding it. While an individual user with Spambayes can glance at their spam folder and decide what to delete, nobody gets that chance when the server silently discards messages, and the sender isn't notified. In that case the system has simply failed and no one can find out why. Since the classifier that can avoid false positives has yet to be invented, it is very important to not silently delete suspected spam, especially at the server level. -- Seth Goodman _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/spambayes Check the FAQ before asking: http://spambayes.sf.net/faq.html
