> From: John Leslie > ... > > - local administrative choices that keep bastion SMTP servers ignorant > > of per-user filter preferences > > This is a feature, not a problem. If the end user wants a filtering > process individualized that much, s/he should choose to use a SMTP > server which agrees to do so. That is a feature only if the user accepts the consequences of discarding mail without generating bounces, including not informing senders of false positives. Bounces from internal spam filters (either in MUAs or MTAs inside organizations) are a major source of unsolicited bulk mail or spam. > > - filtering at the DATA command requires either (1) rejecting for > > all or no targets or (2) accepting for all targets and siliently > > discarding the message for those targets that want it filtered. > > Alternatively, the receiving SMTP server could reject any multiply- > addressed email. People running SMTP servers that handle 100K or more msgs/day have been uniformly horrified when I've suggested that. I don't really understand why, but I have given up on the idea. > (Silently discarding _is_ a bad idea, when done by the SMTP server > itself. IMHO, it's better to mark for later discard -- which actually > could be done in such a way as to mark only for those recipients who > requested the more restrictive filtering.) A better positition is that everything should be logged, particularly including discarded mail, and in that case, enough of bodies to allow targets to identify senders and the nature of the discarded messages. Of course, one should assume users won't normally look at those logs. Spam you read is not filtered, but at most categorized and stigmatized. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx