On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:20:06PM -0500, Brian wrote: > Do the world a favor and simply hold, rather than bounce, unknown > mail. Or drop it. But please don't penalize the rest of the world > (spam or otherwise) by bouncing messages, most of which will probably > end up getting sent to a spoofed return path.
Why is bouncing unknown email any more penalizing than confirming unknown email? As far as spoofed return paths, I currently filter all incoming email based on SPF records prior to anything ever reaching TMDA. Anyone that has a valid SPF record won't get bounces or confirms from my TMDA set up. > You might be interested in a little utility I wrote, tmda-ezplm > (http://www.pongonova.net/tmda-ezplm), which would allow you to simply > hold all incoming, non-whitelisted e-mail to your son in tmda-pending, > and have a nightly e-mail send to yourself which would allow you to > release and/or whitelist new senders that are known to you. Setting the email up to confirm, rather than bounce, is not a bad idea. That would give me an option to peruse the pending dir to whitelist and/or release acceptable emails. But I'd want to set it up so that confirmation replies did nothing. My purpose for sending a bounce or a confirm is to provide the sender with an option once they find out that they can't send my son email. The last thing I want is for someone who has a legitimate reason to send email to my son thinking that their email got through when it didn't. I think it's my responsibility to inform folks that their email failed and give them something that they can do if they really want to send this email. Cheers, - Mark _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
