From: "Garry T. Williams" <gtwilliams@xxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 26 June 2006 21:12, jdow wrote:
From: "Paul Howarth" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
[snip]
> Doing this means that *you* get to see the mail identified as spam, when
> you look in the special file. Rejecting the message in the SMTP
> transaction means that the *sender* knows you didn't get the email, so
> they can either try resending a less-spammy message, or contacting you
> by other means if it's something important. No intervention needed on
> your part.
Oh really.... And how do you keep a joe-job from turning your system
into a spam system? Or do you mean simply 404ing the transaction?
Rejecting the mail during the *SMTP* transaction *never* involves any
hosts or addresses mentioned in the message headers. It is a TCP
protocol-level thing only involving the peers: the sending host and
your receiving host. It's impossible to involve a third party.
Of course, that was the point Paul was making.
That is, of course, the right way to do it. But after being on the
receiving end of a joe-job in the past I am a little "sensitive" to
the issue. And SOME people, probably not Paul on second thought (sorry
it was not first thought, Paul), are a little careless with regards
to "reject" and "bounce".
{^_^}
