On 19 Feb 2005 at 18:55, Marc Perkel wrote about
"Re: [exim] 5 Minute Penalty Box":
| >| And I do want to return a 4XX code because this
| >| is where message are probably spam - but may not be - and I want the
| >| non-spam to try again. I'm counting on the spammer email to go away.
| >
| >I think you're misunderstanding Marc's point, Marc. The ACL snippet
| >you posted doesn't show you deferring the first bad address, it shows
| >you accepting it. Presumably you catch it with a later deny (why
| >would you *accept* an invalid recipient?), but why not make the warn
| >you showed a deny instead?
|
| Yes - I accept the first one - at this level.
But *why*? It's not necessary as part of your greylist variant.
| The spam filter then
| blocks it if it is spam.
Why run an invalid recipient through your spam scanner?
| If the recipient is invalid it's not going
| anywhere.
| The point here is all ablout reducing load.
|...
You've said all that already. It doesn't explain why the "warn" in
the ACL snippet you posted isn't a "deny", which is what Marc was
asking IIUC. Are you thinking a deny wouldn't update your hints?
- Fred
