I like the idea of refusing the message before it gets to qmail. Once we accept this junk mail, the senders' system probably assumes there's a valid user and my guess is, the invalid email address will be added to more junk lists. We could log the IP address along with the to and from address, in case we need to troubleshoot a problem.
Now if there was a foolproof method to verify return addresses before accepting email so we could get rid of the spam coming in to valid users!!! Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darrell May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gordon Rowell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Charlie Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] Re: doublebounceto (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Re: [TT20020107010] [e-smith-devinfo] smtpd_check_rules bug) > > Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Double bounces may well be an important indication of problems, > <snip> > > Agreed. However if everyone returns to my original bug report and reviews > my suggested solution, this would stop any need for the invalid address, > double-bounce messages in the first place. Messages to invalid addresses > would be handled by smtpd_check_rules before Qmail. Done deal for a large > percentage of these double-bounce messages. > > So far from the Mitel team I have seen no alternative presented. With the > help of others, this problem is finally being recognized, understood and a > few real world examples are being reported. This will be a supported client > issue soon, if not already, that you will need to deal with. It would be > nice to have the Mitel team come onboard and present some ideas for us > (devinfo) to look into, test and offer feedback on. > > Let's not take the standard, this is not a supported issue track this time. > Let's recognize the issue exists and simply work to develop a solution. > > IMHO any solution that puts the requirement on a typical non-technically > experienced SME Server admin to filter these is not the appropriate answer. > We need to develop a server solution. This is why we are all here on > devinfo. We develop solutions. > > So far we have had one alternative hack presented. Thanks John! It was > pointed out that this alternative was not recommended but at least it was a > presented idea. We need to keep fielding ideas. There has got to be a way > to prevent or reduce these double bounce messages. > > I'm going to fall back to my original bug report and build the template > fragment I suggested. If anyone wants to offer feedback on my original > suggestion telling me it won't work or if you have a better idea, again > let's keep fielding the ideas until we find a winner. > > Regards, > > -- > Darrell May > DMC Netsourced.com > http://netsourced.com > http://myEZserver.com > > > -- > Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues > Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org > > -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
