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:
September 2: Social gathering
Next Installfest:
TBD
Latest News:
Aug. 18: Discounts to "Velocity" in NY; come to tonight's "Photography" talk
Page last updated:
2003 Sep 21 01:58

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 Sat 20 Sep 03,  9:20 PM, Ken Bloom <kabloom@ucdavis.edu> said:
> 
> 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.

umm, there must be some kind of confusion here.

these messages aren't silently dropped.  they're rejected.  there's a
big difference...

that's why they're called "reject messages".    :-)

pete

-- 
GPG Instructions: http://www.dirac.org/linux/gpg
GPG Fingerprint: B9F1 6CF3 47C4 7CD8 D33E 70A9 A3B9 1945 67EA 951D
_______________________________________________
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.