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 abouttheir NTP vandalism]
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 14:18:24 -0400 [email protected] wrote:
Your statement is open to multiple interpretations. I argue thatOn Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:16:53 PDT, Steve Thomas said:> 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.
anytime our system identifies a message as spam that it gets
delivered to the system bit bucket.
RFC-821 and netiquette also "mandate" e-mail be properly addressed.
System manufacturers and administrators make compromises because
strict adherence to the rules is not always possible from an
Elsewhere in 2821 (6.1, to be specific): When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK" message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for delivering or relaying the message. It must take this responsibility seriously. It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable resource shortage.
Lost me on that part about crashes being frivolous reasons. This is a political statement not an indisputable matter of fact.
OK? Got that? You '250 OK' it, you got a *serious* responsibility. Losing the
you're in for some severe karmic protocol payback down the road... ;)
I'm not the one throwing them away and never look at them; watch the finger wagging. And thanks for the karma heads up, Bhudda. matthew black california state university, long beach