At 22:51 +0000 3/6/2002, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 01:02:19PM -0800, John W Baxter wrote:
>> On the other hand, it can avoid mail storms. (eg, local user's infected
>> mail program sends out many worm instances without user's knowledge...user
>> gets a few hundred rejects...user calls support.)
>> We're looking at sending notice on the first of a "set" and then sending
>> summaries every few hours (Exim needs outside help for that).
>
>Do you know what I mean by ``reliable mail delivery''? Is this a hard
>concept for you to understand?
>
>If the user gets infected with a virus, and gets several hundred rejects
>this is good, as it gives them a rather good incentive to fix things.
>
It may also give them an incentive to change service providers.
One real reject and a later summary of several more rejections for the same
cause seems reliable enough (every sent message not delivered is accounted
for to the user). Dropping all of them on the floor or dropping the
"several more" on the floor doesn't, and wasn't what I said. The user is
still likely to be very confused (I don't have that address anywhere...yes
you do, it's in a page in your web cache...what's a web cache?...)
It's very true that I wouldn't expect your mail servers to be configured
this way. I (were I served by your servers) would probably appreciate your
way.
--John (not planning to debate this)
--
John Baxter jwblist@??? Port Ludlow, WA, USA
