Dnia 20.06.2022 o godz. 16:32:10 Jarland Donnell via mailop pisze:
>
> Be that as it may in opinion, it was my observation that having this
> limitation has resulted in extremely minimal pushback with extremely
> significant gain. Everything we do is a trade off. If I could have a rule
> that had a 100% rate of hitting spam and 0% rate of hitting ham, I'd
> certainly love that up front. But the number of senders that need to send
> but don't want to receive bounces is actually pretty low in practice. The
> number of recipients without MX records that intend to receive mail have
> been zero across our entire platform, and we're not dealing with a small
> amount of email. In the recipient case, 100% have been registration form
> spam, causing junked up mail queues as they're all waiting for a DNS
> propagation event that isn't going to happen.
I understand that you want to eliminate sender domains that don't receive
mail. Postfix has "reject_unknown_sender_domain" rule for this purpose, and
I'm pretty sure other MTAs have similar ones. These rules by default check for
either MX or A records, and reject if none of them is present, so why
introduce an additional restriction to MX only? Do it the way it should be
done... :)
reject_unknown_sender_domain
Reject the request when Postfix is not the final destination for the
sender address, and the MAIL FROM domain has 1) no DNS MX and no DNS A
record, or 2) a malformed MX record such as a record with a zero-length MX
hostname (Postfix version 2.3 and later).
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
