Greg A. Woods wrote:
> Huh? What the heck does content (i.e. the part sent betweeen DATA and
> end-of-DATA) have to do with the use of a null sender address (i.e. the
> parameter sent with the MAIL command)!?!?!?!?
I'm surprised you have to ask that, Greg.
> If the content is clearly junk then it is pure junk through and through
> and your mailer can reject it in the response to the end-of-DATA (".").
> That's fine. That's good. That's the right thing to do.
> However there's no need to know what the sender address was (which could
> have been forged) if the content is clearly identified as junk!
Which is more computationally expensive:
A: if $sender == "<>" and $recpient == $list_of_non_sending__addresses then 550.
B: Ignore the above, pass the message off to ClamAV and then off to
SpamAssassin and let them determine if it is crap or not.
You keep claiming that there are other methods of determining what is crap
but blatently ignore that the most effective use of processor time is to do
LEAST COMPUTATIONALLY EXPENSIVE TESTS *FIRST*. So why should we have to wait
until DATA when we can tell at RCPT that it is bogus?
--
Steve C. Lamb | Sign the "Kick Greg A. Woods Troll" off
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | exim-users petition today!
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
