On 10 Dec 2004 at 1:15, Alan J. Flavell wrote about
"Re: [exim] Discarding a message wit":
| On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Fred Viles wrote:
|
| > Interesting. Do you really see that happening much?
|
| On the scale of the thousands of offers of spam and malware that are
| automatically rejected, no. But on the scale of nuisances which leave
| mail on the postmaster's inbox for manual attention - enough to be a
| nuisance and irritation, yes.
To be clear, when you see these annoying bogus DSNs in the postmaster
mailbox, you are noticing that the failed delivery attempt was to
your server for one of your users? Because:
| > 1. The majority of spam & malware these days is offered directly by
| > spamware/malware, and as such rejection does not led to DSNs to
| > anybody.
|
| Mostly that's true; but there are enough exceptions to represent a
| nuisance to the postmasters. Quite a lot of it is third-party
| rejections to faked mail (collateral rejections / outscatter, whatever
| you like to call it) sent by idiots who didn't have the sense to
| reject it at SMTP time, but found out afterwards that they didn't like
| it.
This sounds like you are now talking about backscatter from delivery
failues at other domains where your postmaster address was the
spoofed sender, which is a different issue. Are you really
differentiating the two cases?
| Then there's the problem of users who have forwarding addresses
| elsewhere.
Yes, that would be a source of exceptions when it comes to content or
sender based rejections...
|...
- Fred
