On 21/12/11 16:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > 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.
Note that I never said that the only solution is to deliver the email. What I said was that if the email is accepted for delivery it should be delivered. In this case the email should be rejected. > 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, this is wrong, just because a lot of people configure SA to drop email does not make the practice correct. There is one case where I will drop email and that is if it contains a virus. In the case of SPAM the best solution is to deliver the email to the user's SPAM folder (that is if it didn't get rejected by postscreen already). > 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. Yes in a perfect world everyone would follow RFCs and do the right thing with email. Just because the world is not perfect is not an excuse for you to make it worse. Peter
