l i n u x - u s e r s - g r o u p - o f - d a v i s
L U G O D
 
Next Meeting:
November 4: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
TBD
Latest News:
Oct. 24: LUGOD election season has begun!
Page last updated:
2003 Sep 20 22:14

The following is an archive of a post made to our 'vox-tech mailing list' by one of its subscribers.

Report this post as spam:

(Enter your email address)
Re: [vox-tech] the answer to all my virus problems
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vox-tech] the answer to all my virus problems



On Saturday 20 September 2003 09:20 pm, Ken Bloom wrote:
> 
> On 2003.09.20 18:39, Rod Roark wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 September 2003 06:22 pm, Gabriel Rosa wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 06:15:32PM -0700, p@dirac.org wrote:
> > > > On Sat 20 Sep 03,  6:15 PM, Ken Herron <kherron@newsguy.com>  
> > said:
> > > > > --On Saturday, September 20, 2003 04:24:56 PM -0700 Rod Roark
> > > > > <rod@sunsetsystems.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Cool.  I wonder if there's an easy way to get Postfix to
> > > > > >notice these attachments at the front door, and drop the
> > > > > >connection before all 150K or whatever have been received.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, if the remote end sees the connection drop in mid- 
> > session,
> > it'll
> > > > > typically save the message and try to deliver it again later.  
> > So
> > this
> > > > > feature wouldn't be all that useful.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ken Herron
> > > >
> > > > why not?
> > > >
> > > > let them huff.  let them puff.  and after 3 days, they'll give up
> > on the
> > > > delivery.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The point being that 3 days of huffing and puffing might end up
> > costing you
> > > more bandwidth than if you just swallow the message :)
> > 
> > Well, you get the satisfaction of wasting the sender's
> > bandwidth too.  And for me at least, as a DSL user, incoming
> > bandwidth is cheaper than outgoing.
> > 
> > As for the Postfix solution that I actually implemented,
> > it's a bit unclear if the entire message is received, but I
> > suspect it is.  The sender definitely gets closed out with a
> > rejection message, not just a dropped connection.  At least
> > the offending mail is not saved to disk and does not require
> > another pass from procmail or SpamAssassin or whatever.
> 
> Umm, please consider the golden rule when sending reject messages.
> Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.
> This can go two ways though because you might not want your legit  
> messages silently dropped. You be the judge.

Rejection means the message is NOT silently dropped.  The
connecting MTA is informed that the message is rejected, and
presumably will notify the sender.  It's similar to what
happens when you send a message to a nonexistent user at
some domain: it's not delivered, and you receive a
notification that usually includes whatever brief message
was returned by the rejecting MTA.

Which, by the way, offers another level of satisfaction.
You get to choose the rejection message.  :-)

-- Rod
   http://www.sunsetsystems.com/

_______________________________________________
vox-tech mailing list
vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox-tech



LinkedIn
LUGOD Group on LinkedIn
Sign up for LUGOD event announcements
Your email address:
facebook
LUGOD Group on Facebook
'Like' LUGOD on Facebook:

Hosting provided by:
Sunset Systems
Sunset Systems offers preconfigured Linux systems, remote system administration and custom software development.

LUGOD: Linux Users' Group of Davis
PO Box 2082, Davis, CA 95617
Contact Us

LUGOD is a 501(c)7 non-profit organization
based in Davis, California
and serving the Sacramento area.
"Linux" is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.

Sponsored in part by:
O'Reilly and Associates
For numerous book donations.