On 12/20/2011 6:29 PM, Peter wrote: > On 21/12/11 13:21, Reindl Harald wrote: >> so why does he not use the reply-button and what is he thinking does >> "nore...@mail.tld" mean? if you do not read the noreply-address it >> is the same as drop the messages, the only difference is on the storage > > I am not excusing the sender's actions, I am simply stating that if you > are going to accept an email for delivery then you should deliver it, to > do otherwise gives a false impression to the sender.
The act of delivery to a mailbox does not guarantee the message will be read by a human, nor replied to, ever. Thus there is zero practical difference, from the sender's POV, in this case, between delivering to /dev/null and to a mailbox whose contents are never read, but deleted each night via a cron job. As someone else stated, the only difference is disk space usage. To further shoot your argument down, many postqueue Spamassassin implementations at the MDA level discard spam before final delivery millions of times a day around the world. Using your definitions, doing this is illegal/wrong as well. Yes, in a perfect world it's best to reject any mail at smtpd which you know you will not deliver. But we don't live in a perfect world. Thus, now and then, 'imperfect' solutions must be used for certain classes/types of problems. -- Stan
