North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SORBS Contact
Allan Poindexter wrote:
That's a very "interesting" statement. Here's my response, I'll deliver your traffic if it is not abusive if you delivery my non-abusive traffic. My definition of 'abusive' is applied to what I will let cross my border (either direction) - I expect you will want to do the same with the traffic you define as abusive, and I expect you to and support your right to do that.Matthew> so would you consider as it is my network, that I should Matthew> not be allowed to impose these 'draconian' methods and Matthew> perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to censor traffic to and Matthew> from my networks?
There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of theAnyone using SORBS as I have intended and provided (and documented) will/should not silently discard mail.
If anyone asks how to silently discard mail I actively and vigorously discourage the practice.* In fact because I disagree with that even in the case of virus infected mail I patches my postfix servers to virus scan inline so virus infected mail can be rejected at the SMTP transaction. RFC2821 is clear when you have issued an ok response to the endofdata command you accept responsibility for the delivery of that message and that should not fail or be lost through trivial or avoidable reasons - I consider virus detection and spam as trivial reasons - if you can't detect a reason for rejection at the SMTP transaction, deliver the mail.
* except in extreme/unusual circumstances - for example, there are 2 email addresses that if they send mail *to* me, they will get routed to /dev/null regardless of content.