Re: Is it just me that is being picked on?
From: Rich Piotrowski (abuse_at_wi.rr.com)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:41:02 -0500
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:26:17 -0700, "ynotssor" <"ynotssor"> wrote:
>"Mark" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Reject will bounce the email back to the originating address, which
>> with this virus, the email address is more then likely from some
>> other poor schmuck.
>> Iam sure that you seen and received a email rejection notice before
>> something along the terms of:
>> Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
>> Subject: 641
>> Sent: 9/20/2003 6:42 PM
>> The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org' on 9/20/2003 6:42 PM
>> 450 <email@example.com>: User unknown in local recipient table
>Reject does *not* "bounce the email back to the originating address." Reject
>does dot accept anything to bounce back; it terminates the connection with
>the above 450 error code before any bandwidth-consuming email can be sent.
OK. I see we have a disagreement. Your explanation is how *I*
>The "email rejection notice" you quoted above is constructed and delivered
>by the MTA that is originating the email, NOT the MTA that is rejecting the
>email. The rejecting MTA is providing only the 450 error code line and then
>terminating the connection. It is the responsibility of the originating MTA
>to inform the sender of the reason why the email was rejected by the
>destination MTA. The originating MTA may be configured to inform the sender
>of only the returned 450 error code, or it may include any or all of the
>original email as submitted or as attachment.
So the email may indeed be bounced by the originating MTA. If I
understand this all correctly, Bandwidth may be wasted but it is at
the originating MTA not the destination MTA. Being a little bit
selfish, I'd prefer to waste theirs.
I wonder how many send back the whole message vs. those that simply
return an error and drop the message. Why would you do it any other
>Reject is different from discard and does not function as you stated. Reject
>accepts no mail beyong sufficient identification to determine the rejection.
>Discard accepts and then redirects the entire email to the discard
>destination, usually /dev/null, and so consumes the same bandwidth as if the
>email was accepted for local delivery.
Again, That is how I understood it. I just may test it my sending a
test message or two from another account. I'll see if I can learn
>Don't expect spammers or virus/worm/trojan originators to examine any such
>messages however. There's no money in it.
To reply via E-Mail use rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com