REJECT-ON-SMTP-DATA (Re: Mail Server best practices - was: Pandora's Box of new TLDs)
owenc at hubris.net
Tue Jul 1 09:28:02 CDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Jul 1, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Chris Owen <owenc at hubris.net> wrote
I did not write this FYI.
>> It is because, if someone reports (by telephone, IRC or IRL) that he
>> sent an email and I did not receive it, I regard as VERY IMPORTANT to
>> be able to check the spam folder (with a search tool, not by hand)
>> go back to him saying "No, we really did not receive it".
> The magic keyword: REJECT-ON-SMTP-DATA.
> Aka during the "DATA" phase of the email, also directly scan it,
> then when the spam/virus tool thinks it is spam/virus, you just
> reject it.
> This solves a couple of things in one go:
> - No more 'spam' folder, as the stuff that is spam is already
> You might get a few mails through that are actually spam, but this
> mostly marginal.
The lack of a spam folder is one of the problems with such a
solution. Having a middle ground quarantine is actually quite nice.
However, the biggest problem is these solutions are global in nature.
We let individual customers considerable control over the process.
They can each set their own block and quarantine levels, configure
their own white and blacklists and even turn the spam controls
completely off. For various reasons none of that would be possible
with this solution and all the implementations you link to all run
with a single global configuration.
Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun):
President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~ A stupidity tax
Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt
Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG