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 spam-fighter who wants to
"retaliate"...
I stated my objectives and they have nothing to do with this pathetic
straw-man argument.
Most if not all of your arguments are arguments for spam-filtering
mail, not in favor of rejection at DATA stage.
How is that English-as-a-second-language class coming along?
I refuse to bore this group by repeating arguments that you so grossly
mis-categorize in a feeble attempt to promote your point of view.
Last, keep in mind that filtering mechanisms in whatever stage are not
solely meant for rejecting or spam-fighting, they are for *filtering*
and then assigning appropriate actions - which often have nothing to do
with spam/malware detection at all.
Now THAT is off-topic. We are discussing the use of SA at SMTP time.
Please stay on-topic for this group, and for this thread.
If you actually care to continue, I expect a reasonable response to my
arguments about rejection being better than bouncing or silent diversion.
Geez, you didn't even try to advocate a system of notices to the user to
overcome the 'silent' portion of that argument. Do I have to argue both
sides for you? :)
- C
