At 1:27 PM -0400 4/29/01, John R Levine wrote:
> > At that point, I lose all sympathy with them. Bounce the message,
>> fine. 550, no problem. Their network, their anti-spam policy. But
>> silent dropping is just _wrong_.
>
>In this case, I don't blame them a bit. Most of the stuff their anti-spam
>rules rejects is indeed spam, and if they did rejections, they'd often
>proxy mailbomb whatever return address was forged in the spam. (Keep in
>mind that lots of spam comes through open third-party relays, not direct
>from the spammer.)
I do not like to see them drop messages anyway. There are ways to
handle this. Since their system is so sophisticated, they could add
code to bounce the first 500 and drop the rest of the bounces. On the
500th bounce, they could return a message to the postmaster of the
site to indicate that messages were being lost due to excessive
bounces. But silently dropping messages is wrong. -Chuck-
--
__________________________________________________________________________
Chuck Rice <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://www.wildrice.com/>
