Re: Spam filtering bcps [was Re: Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism]

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Matthew Black wrote:
>

> there's no bandwidth savings from silently dropping the message
> versus providing a 550 rejection. In the best of all worlds,
> it would be nice to give feedback. No system is perfect and a
> false-positive rate of less than one in a million "220" accepted
> messages seems pretty small.

I thought I had already participated in beating this dead horse 
sufficiently in multiple threads in multiple forums on multiple 
occasions. Maybe I am in your killfile or something. If I post again on 
this topic, I certainly will deserve to be.

Let me ask you this simple question:

If you know at close of DATA whether you are going to actually perform 
final delivery, what does it cost you to follow standards and issue a 
550 instead of a 220 and discard it?

If you use a 550, a real live person sending an email that somehow gets 
FP will actually benefit.

I am with Suresh on this, just like in the past threads. Search the archive.