North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Spam filtering bcps [was Re: Open Letter to D-Link about theirNTP vandalism]

  • From: Joe Maimon
  • Date: Wed Apr 12 12:05:15 2006

Matthew Black wrote:

there's no bandwidth savings from silently dropping the message
versus providing a 550 rejection. In the best of all worlds,
it would be nice to give feedback. No system is perfect and a
false-positive rate of less than one in a million "220" accepted
messages seems pretty small.
I thought I had already participated in beating this dead horse sufficiently in multiple threads in multiple forums on multiple occasions. Maybe I am in your killfile or something. If I post again on this topic, I certainly will deserve to be.

Let me ask you this simple question:

If you know at close of DATA whether you are going to actually perform final delivery, what does it cost you to follow standards and issue a 550 instead of a 220 and discard it?

If you use a 550, a real live person sending an email that somehow gets FP will actually benefit.

I am with Suresh on this, just like in the past threads. Search the archive.