> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@building.weird.com]On Behalf Of Greg
> A. Woods
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:15 PM
> To: Rick Cooper
> Cc: Exim User's Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are
> refusing bounces...
>
>
> [ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 10:02:06 (-0500), Rick Cooper wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim
> are refusing bounces...
> >
> > The use of null, mailer_daemon, etc in the checks for virus
> bounces is to
> > make sure that mails arriving from an individual concerned with someone
> > sending them a virus are not dropped offhand. We deal with a top three
> > automobile manufacturer and they *regularly* get infections
> that can result
> > in literally thousands of virus laden emails being sent from a
> single user's
> > address book... huge distribution lists on a single user's
> machine(which is
> > wrong in the first place IMHO). I don't want the bounces from automated
> > systems of notification to end up cluttering a mailbox just
> because it came
> > from null, and I don't want to block emails from a honest to God human,
> > something I can deal with.
>
> So you'd rather reject valid messages that happen to have a null sender
> (and maybe whatever other criteria your rules require), and thus cause
> loss of e-mail, instead of dealing with the actual problem you're
> encountering?!?!?!?!
Ok, I am done with this topic. I specifically stated I do not dump valid
mails from null. This has degenerated from a debate to "I know you are but
what am I". It's as though accuracy and context are of no value to you when
it comes to these discussions.
>
> That's not acceptable in my world, nor is it acceptable to the SMTP
> protocol standard.
>
> If you don't want the junk then identify it specifically and as
> precisely as you can as junk and reject just the junk. You do not need
> to use the presence of a null sender address in your attempt to identify
> the junk -- or at least I and many others doing likewise don't.
>
>
Ok a bounce arrives to an account that receives mail but never sends it. I
*do* *not* *want* to mess with a bounce that is obviously in error, or
malicious in nature.
Now give me an example of how one goes about determining it's junk and
discarding it. Really.. you ignored my last request for examples and I have
given several. Again this is the difference between debate and exchange of
ideas and "I am right because I believe I am right, that is all the proof
you need".
> > Exim's job is not to force admins to do things the author's way...
>
> I'm very well aware of that, given he used to help maintain Smail. :-)
>
> However I've not been talking about the "author's way" here -- but
> rather a fundamental requirement written into the protocol standard.
>
> Neither the author nor the users really have any choice if they want to
> ensure the product and their use of it will conform as closely as
> possible to key requirements in the protocol standard. As others have
> so rightly said it's impossible to force the users to behave, but it's
> not so hard to make it very difficult for them to misbehave.
>
>
> > Your point is absolutely valid, taken in the context of normal emails,
> > normal circumstance... in other words in general.
>
> Thank you. :-)
>
> > It is not, however, valid
> > in all situations, circumstance and needs.
>
> On the contrary: for all those other circumstances there is never any
> real need to use the presence of a null sender address in any part of
> the process used to identify unwanted junk. This has been demonstrated
> time and time again by all those people who deal with the kinds of
> problems you describe without ever resorting to use of the null sender
> address in their controls. I do fine with Smail. Postfix users get
> along fine with what features Postfix offers them. Sendmail users do
> fine with what features Sendmail offers them. I don't know how well
> qmail users do because I don't dare talk to any of them about e-mail
> issues :-) If Exim is so great and so flexible then Exim users should
> be able to do better than all the rest of us combined, and still without
> having to ever use the null sender address in their controls.
>
Jungle natives of South America "do fine" without automobiles, what's your
point?
Look, suppose I send it off through a filter some where to churn through it
looking for hints it's something I don't want the end result is the same.
The difference is methodology. You can start a fire with two sticks and a
soap stone, or you can start it with a lighter. The end goal is to have a
fire, the end result is a fire. The only difference is one method uses ease
and simplicity and the other brute force that doesn't always work in given
circumstances.
I applaud you in doing "fine" and I hope you will continue to have success
with both sticks and the soap stone.
Done,
Rick
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
