4 ms·
> It's still a good sign of a badly written bulk mail engine, and worth rejecting for. No, it might be worth scoring the e-mail with a spam filter, but the MTA
by anonyfuss 13y ago
> It's still a good sign of a badly written bulk mail engine, and worth rejecting for.
No, it might be worth scoring the e-mail with a spam filter, but the MTA shouldn't be overzealously throwing away e-mail.
- baudehlo 13y agoMy MTA doesn't "throw away" email. It sends back a 5xx with an appropriate message that the sending end isn't RFC compliant. Absolutely nothing wrong with that - if it's a legit sender they know I didn't get the mail.
- anonyfuss 13y agoAt which point the legit sender does what -- replace their MtA? More likely they just contact thir receipient out-of-band (eg; gmail) and avoid your over-zealous mta. Whether you think you're 'Throwing away' is just semantics. From a user's perspective that's exactly what you're doing.
- baudehlo 13y agoIt's my MTA, I'm the "user". My server, my rules. Just like if you want to come into my house you come in the front door and take your shoes off, not crash through the window in muddy boots.
- anonyfuss 13y agoIn that case, I wouldn't say it's a particularly useful anecdote for anyone else.