On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 14:31:03 GMT, "Alan J. Flavell"
<a.flavell@???> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>
>> If you reject to the gateway server, it will have no option
>> but to bounce it, making you one of those annoying corporates who
>> send out non-delivery/virus "reports" to innocent third-parties. Once
>> you have a server in your organisation which has accepted the
>> message, you have little option but to accept it and blackhole it in
>> the situation you're talking about.
>
> Maybe the correct solution is to forward the offending item to the
> abuse reporting address for the corporate gateway [fx: evil cackle]
:-) I'd love to! It may be a "career limiting move" on my part though :-(
Also what Matthew has said is correct, and this is the main reason why I am
fighting to avoid getting into this situation in the first place (but
that's politics). I absolutely don't want to end up spewing out useless
bounces but at the same time I want to utilise the protection DNSBL's gives
the many mail networks I directly look after. So that's why I am
investigating all options.
It's very frustrating when you know you already have a superior solution
that's working well.
Depending on the DNSBL type we could blackhole mail but that carries its
own dangers of binning wanted mail - not a nice thought.
Cheers
Patrick
