Re: [exim-dev] [PATCH] Implement redirect

On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:41:37PM -0700, John W. Baxter wrote:
> On 6/29/06 10:40 AM, "Robert Millan" <rmh@???> wrote:
>
> > E.g., I don't think anyone would want to use this for his main address (the
> > one
> > in his From: headers), but if he has other addresses that are obsolete and/or
> > barely used, but still generate a lot of traffic (spam), in this situation 551
> > codes would be suitable.
> >
>
> A spammed address would be a case where 551 isn't suitable (or won't be for
> long). Do we really want it to be worth while to the spammers and phishers
> to learn to understand "Joe isn't here, he moved to the trailer down the
> road--go break his leg there"?

The question is that you could have an MTA with lots of delivery-time checks in
recipient side, but you can't take advantage of them if the spammer doesn't
attempt to delivery their stuff directly.

So it's more like: "I don't have a bat to beat you here, but Joe is in the
trailer down the road. Go there and get your leg broken."

--
Robert Millan