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 their NTP vandalism]
> I haven't seen any succinct justification for providing a > 550 message rejection for positively-identified spam versus > silently dropping the message. Lots of how-to instructions > but no whys. RFC 2821? ...the protocol requires that a server accept responsibility for either delivering a message or properly reporting the failure to do so. ... If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an "undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the reverse-path). Unless you're the final recipient of the message, you have no business deleting it. If you've accept a message, you should either deliver or bounce it, per RFC requirements.