Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Alice Wonder
On 05/01/2016 03:32 PM, Noel Jones wrote: have false positives. Reserve firewall blocks for persistent offenders since debugging a firewalled false positive is far more difficult. And when you firewall make it short-lived. IP addresses change, and long-lived firewall rules have unintended

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Noel Jones
On 5/1/2016 9:20 AM, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote: > I'm clear this has been asked a gazillion times; feels like I've now read > half the posts. > > For incoming mail that matches with high-confidence a known bot/mass-mailer > restriction, is it 'best' to > > DISCARD or REJECT? > > I still

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Aaron Routt
"Asking a question that doesn't meet your ... um ... standards ... is somehow 'spreading incorrect information'?" Have you stopped beating your wife? - Yes, a question can spread misinformation. I expect specific, correct, info on a mail list, and if I state something wrong, especially with the p

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Wietse Venema
jaso...@mail-central.com: > > If you must spread incorrect information, you can do that elsewhere. > > Asking a question that doesn't meet your ... um ... standards ... is somehow > 'spreading incorrect information'? > Saying that reject sends a bounce is incorrect. Wietse

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
On Sun, May 1, 2016, at 09:34 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > I reduced the blacklists I use because every now and then I find my own > servers on them when I know for a fact there was no unsolicited mail > from them. I'm in the same boat -- but typically want to know IF I'm on a list, especially i

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
> If you must spread incorrect information, you can do that elsewhere. Asking a question that doesn't meet your ... um ... standards ... is somehow 'spreading incorrect information'? > I don't want incorrect information on this mailing list. And I don't want lip & attitude from grumpy old far

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
Hi Alice, On Sun, May 1, 2016, at 08:44 AM, Alice Wonder wrote: > If the IP is on a blacklist I use, I just let the blacklist deal with it via > reject. Generally, I do too. TBH, it's those new-not-yet-on-a-list IPs that got my attention on this. > I'm somewhat conservative with the blacklis

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Wietse Venema
jaso...@mail-central.com: > > > On Sun, May 1, 2016, at 08:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > using REJECT does NOT accept the whole message, and sends a bounce > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. Please see RFC 5321 for how SMTP works. > > > > > > Not the point of my question at all, but right

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Alice Wonder
On 05/01/2016 07:20 AM, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote: I'm clear this has been asked a gazillion times; feels like I've now read half the posts. For incoming mail that matches with high-confidence a known bot/mass-mailer restriction, is it 'best' to DISCARD or REJECT? If the IP is on a

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
On Sun, May 1, 2016, at 08:07 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > using REJECT does NOT accept the whole message, and sends a bounce > > > > > > No, it doesn't. Please see RFC 5321 for how SMTP works. > > > > Not the point of my question at all, but right, I used the improper term. > > You start

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Wietse Venema
> > > using REJECT does NOT accept the whole message, and sends a bounce > > > > No, it doesn't. Please see RFC 5321 for how SMTP works. > > Not the point of my question at all, but right, I used the improper term. You start with a false premise (reject sends a bounce), and everything that foll

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
On Sun, May 1, 2016, at 07:27 AM, Wietse Venema wrote: > jaso...@mail-central.com: > > using REJECT does NOT accept the whole message, and sends a bounce > > No, it doesn't. Please see RFC 5321 for how SMTP works. > > Wietse Not the point of my question at all, but right, I used the imp

Re: bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread Wietse Venema
jaso...@mail-central.com: > using REJECT does NOT accept the whole message, and sends a bounce No, it doesn't. Please see RFC 5321 for how SMTP works. Wietse

bad-bots: REJECT (no accept + bounce) vs DISCARD (accept + trash) ? (for the millionth time ...)

2016-05-01 Thread jasonsu
I'm clear this has been asked a gazillion times; feels like I've now read half the posts. For incoming mail that matches with high-confidence a known bot/mass-mailer restriction, is it 'best' to DISCARD or REJECT? I still can't convince myself of a clear answer, but am leaning to DISCARD. M