From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun May  4 09:51:28 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA03860
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 09:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sos.freebsd.dk (sos.freebsd.dk [195.8.129.33])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03853
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 4 May 1997 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sos@localhost) by sos.freebsd.dk (8.8.5/8.7.3) id SAA07543; Sun, 4 May 1997 18:51:49 +0200 (MEST)
From: Søren Schmidt <sos@sos.freebsd.dk>
Message-Id: <199705041651.SAA07543@sos.freebsd.dk>
Subject: Re: Sendmail.cf patch #2..
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970505002548.2439A-100000@obiwan.psinet.net.au> from Adrian Chadd at "May 5, 97 00:29:23 am"
To: adrian@obiwan.psinet.net.au (Adrian Chadd)
Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 18:51:49 +0200 (MEST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL30 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In reply to Adrian Chadd who wrote:
> 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? :)

Will do :)
>
> > 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. :)

Well, yes, but most of then are so damn persistent that they just try
harder when they get a reject, when not we have them belive their
thing does it stuff :), that buys us time to get the sucker nailed
on the village gate :)

> How bout we provide both options? :)

No objections from me :)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt               (sos@FreeBSD.org)               FreeBSD Core Team
                Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..