Re: Is it just me that is being picked on?

From: Rich Piotrowski (abuse_at_wi.rr.com)
Date: 09/21/03


Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:41:02 -0500

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:26:17 -0700, "ynotssor" <"ynotssor"> wrote:

>"Mark" <mw@nospam.me> wrote in message
>news:MPG.19d6a2acb64beaa398970e@192.168.0.203
>
>> 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:
>> mark@donotspam.me' on 9/20/2003 6:42 PM
>> 450 <mark@donotspam.me>: 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*
understood it.

>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
way?

>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
anything.

>
>Don't expect spammers or virus/worm/trojan originators to examine any such
>messages however. There's no money in it.
>
>
> tony

Rich Piotrowski

To reply via E-Mail use rpiotro(at)wi(dot)rr(dot)com