Autor: David Woodhouse Datum: To: Chris Bayliss CC: exim-users, Sean Hoggard, Nigel Metheringham Betreff: Re: [exim] Newbie spam bounce retries question (without disclaimer)
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 15:25 +0100, Chris Bayliss wrote: > Its extremely unlikely that generating any sort of non delivery report
> would break the computer misuse act. I can find no mention of Non
> delivery reports in it at all - have I missed an amendment somewhere
> along the way? However, throwing people's legitimate communications
> away must surely break the Human Rights Act (schedule 1 article 8,
> paragraph 1).
In the case of a virus or spam which you have _identified_ as a virus or
spam, you _know_ that the address in the reverse-path is faked. If you
accept that mail and then _later_ generate a bounce, then you are
intentionally sending a 'non-delivery report' to an third party whom you
_know_ to be innocent. You are making yourself part of the problem.
> Its all down to a matter of balance between running a reliable mail
> service and not generating spurious bounces.
It's an _easy_ balance. You don't generate your own bounces -- you
_reject_ instead of accepting the mail and then bouncing it later. A
legitimate sender will get a bounce, while a drone sending spam will
just move on to the next victim.
