[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: bit-bucketing relayed mail

OK, I thought I had the drift of what you were doing and were doing it
wrong, but obviously I was wrong.
Can you fill me in on what I missed? (I'm very confused now)


----------------------

Michael Samuel,

On Holidays.
                                E-Mail: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Paul Fox wrote:

> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:09:49 -0400
> From: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: djb-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: bit-bucketing relayed mail 
> 
>  > Why the virtual domain stuff?
>  > The virtualdomain file, is a "replacement" for locals.
>  > It will only be used if you have the MX records (or A records and no MX
>  > records) for the domains pointing to it.
> 
> hmmm.  perhaps i wasn't clear enough?  or maybe i'm not sure what you
> mean.  we _do_ have proper MX records for domain.us and some.other.dom
> pointing at the mail-gw gateway machine.  and these domains are _not_
> local to that machine -- the mail-gw should accept no mail except mail
> addressed to mail-gw.domain.us.
> 
>  > Not having anything (except real virtual domains) in you virtualdomains
>  > file will also allow this server to be a second (or third etc.) MX for
>  > those domains/hosts.
> but if i make them "real virtual domains", they'll be delivered to a user.
> then what?  i then need to go through a step of forwarding to 
> $EXT[2]@mail.domain.us, or something like that.  wouldn't that be the
> same in the end?
> 
>  > With you're current setup, it will relay as always, but if somebody sends
>  > mail to one of those virtual domains and you're DNS tells it to deliver
>  > there, it will effectively bit-bucket all messages TO the domain.
> huh?  one of us doesn't understand what i'm doing.  :-)  no one should
> send mail to our gateway unless they were directed there by an MX.  the
> domains which are MX'ed to us are handled as exceptions to the "toss-it"
> catchall, and are delivered normally.  what messages will i bit-bucket
> incorrectly?
> 
>  > I think you need to reconsider you're configuration.
>  > Remember, bouncing or SMTP rejection (eg. badmailfrom) is better than the
>  > bit bucket, because then people know that they're doing someting wrong.
> i think that's debatable.  currently we're being used as a relay for
> massive spam, enough that we've been "blackholed".  if i bounce the mail,
> not only do i consume more of my own network resources, but i tell them
> their mail isn't getting through.  if i drop it, maybe they won't notice
> for a while that their efforts are worthless.
> 
> paul
> ---------------------
>     paul fox, pgf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (arlington, ma)
> 
>
References: