On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > > Curtis: > > What I'd prefer to do here is have the bounces held for customer review so > > that they can realize that they've got an email address that isn't > > delivering and fix the problem on their end. > > Sorry, that does not work. Even my two-user domain sometimes gets > thousands of email messages a day for non-existent recipients. No-one > is going to review such garbage for mis-directed legitimate mail.
I'm not talking about invalid recipients. We bounce email sent to invalid recipients at smtp time. I'm talking about addresses that the client thinks are supposed to be deliverable. As I said, we'll be keeping a valid recipient list. There's just no way to make sure it's perfect when you're talking about tens of thousands of recipients. > > Companies that provide out-sourced email filtering service often > don't have up-to-date recipient lists. Instead they verify addresses > in real-time. The Postfix implementation of this is described in > http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html. It supports > routing overrides, positive caching and negative caching. Yeah, I looked at that option too... but the part about getting black listed didn't sound too appealing. (Some clients will be able to whitelist our server's IP, but we expect that a few of our clients will be on shared hosts were they will have little to no control of such things.) I just hate the thought of a spam filtering company that actually generates any amount of backscatter "spam" of it's own. I'd like our service to be completely "clean". I'm sure we'll come up with something. As always, I really appreciate the amazing support you offer on Postfix. :-) Curtis P.S. I got a complaint that my messages are going to this list in HTML... I'm using gmail at the moment... trying their "plain text" option... hopefully that fixes it. > > Wietse
