From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun May 4 09:46:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA03509 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 09:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obiwan.psinet.net.au (obiwan.psinet.net.au [203.19.28.59]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03502 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 09:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by obiwan.psinet.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA02672; Mon, 5 May 1997 00:29:24 +0800 (WST) Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 00:29:23 +0800 (WST) From: Adrian Chadd To: Søren Schmidt cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sendmail.cf patch #2.. In-Reply-To: <199705041640.SAA06021@sos.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id JAA03504 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 4 May 1997, Søren Schmidt wrote: > > Anyone want to review this stuff at all? > > Yep! > Yay :) Just put up with my (small) oversights ok? :) > I think that instead of bouncing/rejecting the mail form "unwanted parties" > we should just drop it on the floor, that way they think the mail got > delivered and the suckers are ?ucked for a while :) > :) Thing is, spam-rejection is a nice bandwidth-saver.. and there are a lot of places where bandwidth is expensive (eg Australia). Blocking it before the mail is sent would save a lot of money, currently I'm doing the procmail-filtering-on-local-mail thing which does exactly what you're suggesting. Its not saving us any bandwidth, and personally I would love to see the spammers face when one day his spam was rejected everywhere and he saw all of the SMTP rejects. :) How bout we provide both options? :) Adrian.