RE: [exim] Reducing load vs seeing all the spam

Randy Bush wrote:

| perhaps re-reading
| o mark's message, which said "accept" not "read"
| o and rfc 2821 section 4.5.1
| will help you understand the rest of the world's interpretation
| of reality.

OK - re-reading 2821 section 4.5.1:

"SMTP systems are expected to make every reasonable effort to accept
mail directed to Postmaster from any other system on the Internet.
In extreme cases --such as to contain a denial of service attack or
other breach of security-- an SMTP server may block mail directed to
Postmaster."

It could be argued the global spam problem qualifies as a denial of
service attack....

"However, such arrangements SHOULD be narrowly tailored
so as to avoid blocking messages which are not part of such attacks."

OK - so only block the *spam* addressed to postmaster - avoid blocking the
other messages ;-)

When blocking, give an unfiltered support address in the 5xx response.
This doesn't have to be "postmaster".

These days, our postmaster mailbox is deluged with spam. Before long
there won't be any time for sleeping and/or eating - we'll be here 24x7
just deleting the spam.