[89920] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spam filtering bcps [was Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Wed Apr 12 12:04:39 2006
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 12:03:51 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Matthew Black <black@csulb.edu>
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <web-8472920@remus.csulb.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Matthew Black wrote:
>
> there's no bandwidth savings from silently dropping the message
> versus providing a 550 rejection. In the best of all worlds,
> it would be nice to give feedback. No system is perfect and a
> false-positive rate of less than one in a million "220" accepted
> messages seems pretty small.
I thought I had already participated in beating this dead horse
sufficiently in multiple threads in multiple forums on multiple
occasions. Maybe I am in your killfile or something. If I post again on
this topic, I certainly will deserve to be.
Let me ask you this simple question:
If you know at close of DATA whether you are going to actually perform
final delivery, what does it cost you to follow standards and issue a
550 instead of a 220 and discard it?
If you use a 550, a real live person sending an email that somehow gets
FP will actually benefit.
I am with Suresh on this, just like in the past threads. Search the archive.
