Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Simon Windsor wrote:
>
>
>
>>I have noted from the documentation that Exim/Exiscan bounces Spam
>>and viral email.
>>
>>
>
>It does not "bounce" it (in the sense of composing a non-delivery
>report to its envelope-sender address); rather, it "rejects" it (with
>a 5xx code at SMTP time). The distinction is vitally important.
>
>It's madness to literally "bounce" spam or viruses. Formerly known as
>"collateral", and now more-often referred to by the (IMHO unfortunate)
>term of "backscatter". (Myself I think the term "collateral" was more
>apt).
>
>See http://www.ja.net/CERT/JANET-CERT/mail/junk/collateral.html and
>*note the date*. This important message is taking *far* too long to
>percolate through the heads of certain mail admins.
>
>
>
>>Whilst this is good, is it possible to send a short message to the
>>designated recipient advising an email from 'sender' was blocked to
>>due spam/virus detection?
>>
>>
>
>I'm glad I'm not one of your users, then.
>
>See http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/sa.php and particularly
>http://www.attrition.org/security/rant/av-spammers.html
>
>Reports in *either* direction are bad. If the sender is genuine,
>they'll find out soon enough that you *rejected* (not "bounced") their
>mail. What they do then is up to them.
>
>That's assuming that you're talking about mail that's incoming from a
>peer MTA. If you're talking about mail submission from an MUA by one
>of your own users, then the idea of notifying the intended victim is
>even more absurd, I'd have to say. We'd happily blacklist your MTA
>for that!
>
>best regards
>
>
>
Hi
Thank you for your reply.
In using the word bounce, I should have said reject, my mistake.
As you have noted, I have not clearly considered this plan and its
potential weaknesses. Probably better to stick with the default settings
for now, and spend a few weeks reading the Exim documentation, and
reading this list.
Thanks
Simon
--
Simon Windsor
Eml: simon.windsor@???
Tel: 01454 617689
Mob: 07960 321599
