[Mimedefang] Questions about stream_by_recipient and problems it creates.

[Matthew Schumacher]

David F. Skoll wrote:
> Matthew Schumacher wrote:
> 
>> Noooooooooooo!!!!!!  Not silently discard!!!!
> 
> Yes, silently discard.
> 
> But wait!  CanIt, out of the box, *NEVER EVER* rejects or discards
> an e-mail unless a human being tells it to.
> 
> Now, you can tune the settings so that it will in fact reject or
> discard e-mail without intervention, but unless you've been insanely
> aggressive in your settings, even rejected/discarded e-mails create an
> "incident" in the database so you can see what happened, as well as look
> over the first 8kB of the mail to see what you might have missed.
> 
>> Perhaps a better solution for me would be to to make filter_end accept
>> if any one user accepts it, then for the users that reject it, call
>> delete_recipient then email the sender an error message from mimedefang
>> sourced from a black hole account.
> 
> Sending the sender an error message will very quickly get you blacklisted
> as a source of backscatter.  That's the unfortunate reality.
> 

Isn't spam wonderful :|

Here is a thought, what about declaring which users accepted and which
rejected in the rejection message.  So if recipient A wants everything
tagged and recipient B wants spam rejected, then we reject the message
with "Recipient B thinks this is spam (message was delivered to other
recipients)" then in filter_end we queue the message for recipient A.

This way the error message always declares what is going on, the sender
knows what happened, recipient A always gets their email, there is never
silently discarded email, and we are not sending backscatter to the
Internet.

Do you think this will work?

schu