[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: UOL Anti spam is back, again...



On Wednesday 08 March 2006 17:23, Craig White wrote:
> >
> > OTOH I don't clog up the Internet with messages that no-one wants.
>
> ----
> and sell it as a premium service on top of that too!  ;-)
>
Slight misunderstanding of what I was saying ;-)

> seriously though, I know you run your own smtp server and I am trying to
> point out to you that procmail is probably the wrong place to bit bucket
> stuff like this.
>
AIUI, if you reject the message it is returned to sender, thus causing still 
more Internet traffic.  There has to be a very good reason to justify that.

> The better place is to reject it at the smtp server and thus, you won't
> have to run it through spamassassin/anti-virus/procmail etc. and also,
> by rejecting it at smtp server, at least the sender has a chance to find
> out what happened to the email, whereas when you bit bucket it, very few
> clues are left behind.
>
There is one flaw in your logic - the people that sign up for this service 
have been led to understand that it is a 'good thing', so they are not going 
to take much notice.  If you think how many of those things have been 
rejected by list readers - do you see any change in the behaviour of 
uol.com.br?  None at all.  Is the person who signed up for the service taking 
any notice of the rejections and changing his provider?  Obviously not, as 
this has been going on for a long time.

Each to his own, Craig.  We all do what we think best.

Anne

Attachment: pgpRpN07bpXRA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]