Date:  Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:54:37 -0400
From:  Brian <bmcewen (at mark) gmail.com>
Subject:  [coba-e:13950] Re: AW: Re: sendmail question
To:  coba-e (at mark) bluequartz.org
Message-Id:  <63f6d8840809120454j603d7ab3udf4068bc1958a793 (at mark) mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  <200809120850.17524.bq (at mark) solarspeed.net>
References:  <VPOP31.5.0l.20080910182828.510.2d7f.1.505a6688 (at mark) t1.tec1.net>	 <200809111940.06521.bq (at mark) solarspeed.net>	 <F8AEA842D451411D9CED6CBF3F8F011D (at mark) x2>	 <200809120850.17524.bq (at mark) solarspeed.net>
X-Mail-Count: 13950

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Michael Stauber <bq (at mark) solarspeed.net> wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
>> maybe it should be made bq standard then, or are there any potential
>> downsides?
>
> There aren't any downsides that I'm aware of. I'll see what I can do about
> making it standard.

Depending on what you are doing for spam scanning-- this CAN markedly
increase the amount of email that comes into a box if the spam
solution is currently dropping connections on mail with invalid
recipients.  Anyone making this change may want to keep an eye on
things for a bit.

Personally I think the concern over harvesting in this manner is a
little bit moot these days with all the harvesting by other means that
occurs, but everyone gets targeted by different attacks I guess.

Brian