Re: bit-bucketing relayed mail

• To: djb-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: Re: bit-bucketing relayed mail
• From: Paul Fox <pgf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:50:39 -0400
• Delivered-to: mailing list djb-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Delivered-to: djb-qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• In-reply-to: "01 Oct 1997 08:55:57 -0700." <"199710011556.IAA01974"@shell.wco.com>
• Mailing-List: contact djb-qmail-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
• Reply-to: pgf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 > 
 > This isn't a criticism of your particular implementation (because I
 > didn't examine it closely), but the problem I see with dropping mail
 > rather than rejecting it is that your users and support people will
 > be tricked just as badly as spammers.

yes.  for several reasons i've backed off on my configuration:
    - the traditional rcpthosts solution is actually more resource friendly,
    - as you say, using rcpthosts, also protects users and support from
	dumb mistakes,
    - and finally, my configuration didn't work.  :-)  what happened
	is that mail addressed to a nonexistent user at one of our valid
	domains would come into the firewall, and the mailhub would then
	refuse it (no such user).  the firewall would then try and bounce
	it back to the sender, and due to the virtual-domain catchall,
	the bounce would end up in the bit-bucket.  not good.

so i'm implemented the simple rcpthosts solutions.

thanks to everyone who contributed to my greater understanding of
qmail...  :-)

paul
---------------------
    paul fox, pgf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (arlington, ma)

• From:

• Prev: qmsmac question
• Next: qmail-pop3d new -> cur
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread