Re: .forward issues
Phil White <spf@...
2003-11-03 11:38:34 GMT
On Thursday 30 October 2003 00:50, Marc wrote:
> I have to disagree with you about a portion of your message:
> > the admin of an MTA is opnly interested in 1 thing -
> > delivering legitimate email. Spam, worms/viri etc from forged
> > and non-existant addresses should be IMMEDIATELY rejected, not
> > bounced, by issuing a 5xx response at the DATA command. A forged
> > email is simply not allowed onto my server.
> Actually, I think that the first part of the above is exactly correct--the
> MTA admin is only interested in delivering legitimate email. Bandwith
> costs and CPU costs are, for the most part, insignificant. Especially when
> related to the costs of end-user time to process and discard mail. Yes, a
> complete inbox of spam (let alone multiple mailboxes, or hundreds) can take
> up a serious amount of storage, but simply receiving a complete message and
> discarding it as spam does not take up permanent storage. And as
> SPF+blacklisting becomes more effective, the bandwith will be reduced
> because less spam will be sent.
I would love to agree with your last sentence - at the moment I am just
hoping- that less spam will result!
I must confess to forming my views on a mix of other peoples opinions and my
own personal experience - with a heavy slant to the former. OK, starage is
not an issue for my server (though it is for me - I'm daft enough to keep
copies of most spam for analysis later..!). Bandwidth, however, is an issue,
and we ought to keep this in mind.
Random disjointed comments, as I am travelling today, and short on time...