On Sat 20 Sep 03, 9:20 PM, Ken Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > On 2003.09.20 18:39, Rod Roark wrote: > >On Saturday 20 September 2003 06:22 pm, Gabriel Rosa wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:15:32PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > On Sat 20 Sep 03, 6:15 PM, Ken Herron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >said: > >> > > --On Saturday, September 20, 2003 04:24:56 PM -0700 Rod Roark > >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >Cool. I wonder if there's an easy way to get Postfix to > >> > > >notice these attachments at the front door, and drop the > >> > > >connection before all 150K or whatever have been received. > >> > > > >> > > Well, if the remote end sees the connection drop in mid- > >session, > >it'll > >> > > typically save the message and try to deliver it again later. > >So > >this > >> > > feature wouldn't be all that useful. > >> > > -- > >> > > Ken Herron > >> > > >> > why not? > >> > > >> > let them huff. let them puff. and after 3 days, they'll give up > >on the > >> > delivery. > >> > > >> > >> The point being that 3 days of huffing and puffing might end up > >costing you > >> more bandwidth than if you just swallow the message :) > > > >Well, you get the satisfaction of wasting the sender's > >bandwidth too. And for me at least, as a DSL user, incoming > >bandwidth is cheaper than outgoing. > > > >As for the Postfix solution that I actually implemented, > >it's a bit unclear if the entire message is received, but I > >suspect it is. The sender definitely gets closed out with a > >rejection message, not just a dropped connection. At least > >the offending mail is not saved to disk and does not require > >another pass from procmail or SpamAssassin or whatever. > > Umm, please consider the golden rule when sending reject messages. > Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you. > This can go two ways though because you might not want your legit > messages silently dropped. You be the judge.
umm, there must be some kind of confusion here. these messages aren't silently dropped. they're rejected. there's a big difference... that's why they're called "reject messages". :-) pete -- GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D _______________________________________________ vox-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech