|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > postfix-users archives|
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
> 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.