user [EMAIL PROTECTED] usertags #315180 pending-maintaner-discussion close-20060430 severity #315180 wishlist thanks
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 08:07:29PM -0400, sam wrote: > shouldn't the last line be change to: > > verify = recipient/callout=defer_ok I don't think so. > In other words, merely doing a recipient verify on a domain for which > you relay doesn't really return any useful information. (Unless I'm > missing something). This avoids, for example, accepting mail for a domain that is in relay_to_domains but for which no routing information is available, and therefore helps catching configuration errors. >A callout is what I'd think you want. I am very reluctant in enabling callouts by default since this can add significant load on the target system. > I could > go either way on the defer_ok option, but my preference is not to > generate 4xx messages when acting as a relay. Well, not accepting messages for a domain if the domain's primary MX is unavailable is kind of broken behavior for a secondary MX. I am open to arguments that might convince me, but currently I think that the default config is fine and consistent with the rest of the config's policy. If somebody wants other behavior he/she is free to change the configuration with an editor. I am leaving this bug open for arguments until the end of April 2006, and will close it if I have not been convinced until then. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
