Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects

Subject: Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects
From: Wietse Venema (wietseporcupine.org)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 13:51:13 CST

• Next message: Claus Guttesen: "port 113"
• Previous message: LaMont Jones: "Re: offtopic: syslog-ng or LaMont J. to the rescue..."
• In reply to: Jeff Johnson: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Reply: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jeff Johnson:
[Tagging mail with X-ORBS, X-DUL etc.]

> I guess they are using the Software available at
> http://mjhb.mdr.ca.us/rblhack.html. Wietse, is there a way of doing
> anything such as this?

Not currently - there wasn't a lot of demand. That could change.

Postfix rejects mail rather than tagging it. Postfix is flexible
enough that depending on recipient, the same message can be blocked
and accepted at the same time.

Postfix runs message properties along a list of rules and stops at
the first hit. Proper tagging requires an exhaustive evaluation of
all rules.

Advantage of rejecting over tagging is less mail.

Advantage of tagging over rejecting is that filtering is under
control by the end user.

        Wietse

• Next message: Claus Guttesen: "port 113"
• Previous message: LaMont Jones: "Re: offtopic: syslog-ng or LaMont J. to the rescue..."
• In reply to: Jeff Johnson: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Reply: Baron Fujimoto: "Re: 4xx vs 5xx for spam rejects"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Mon Dec 20 1999 - 13:55:44 CST