On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > so what you want in your OP is just DISCARD in a sieve script and there is no point in "Using Dovecot LMTP it would be more optimal to kick a 5xx back" when the desired result is DISCARD > > why do you want the burden of keep the SMTP session with the client open until the mail is finally stored? that don't scale!Sieve is all about policy. A 5xx reject would let the sending server know the message could not be delivered due a failure. (ie: user policy rejection, without receiving MTA generating NDR backscatter). I would rather not just accept it and the message disappear into ether without the sender receiving any notification of why. -- Robert inoc.net!rblayzor http://inoc.net/
Am 14.01.2015 um 02:40 schrieb Robert Blayzor:> On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:30 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >> >> so what you want in your OP is just DISCARD in a sieve script and there is no point in "Using Dovecot LMTP it would be more optimal to kick a 5xx back" when the desired result is DISCARD >> >> why do you want the burden of keep the SMTP session with the client open until the mail is finally stored? that don't scale! > > Sieve is all about policyno - it is about *filter* mails> A 5xx reject would let the sending server know the message could not be delivered due a failurewhich belongs in the MTA and not the LDA> (ie: user policy rejection, without receiving MTA generating NDR backscatter). > I would rather not just accept it and the message disappear into ether without > the sender receiving any notification of why.hence you reject messages on MTA level before LMTP is called because taht happens in case of sender based filters in the envelope-level and in case of subject filters at least before the mailbody -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20150114/ae5da9db/attachment.sig>
On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:>> A 5xx reject would let the sending server know the message could not be delivered due a failure > > which belongs in the MTA and not the LDA > >> (ie: user policy rejection, without receiving MTA generating NDR backscatter). >> I would rather not just accept it and the message disappear into ether without >> the sender receiving any notification of why. > > hence you reject messages on MTA level before LMTP is called because taht happens in case of sender based filters in the envelope-level and in case of subject filters at least before the mailbodyRFC5429 clarifies the need and why "ereject" should be used vs. reject with NDR. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5429 Maybe in your MTA at data time you just accept the message and bounce later (or just discard it). I have the flexibility and the choice not to. -- Robert inoc.net!rblayzor http://inoc.net/