On Thursday 30 July 2009 07:48:25 Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 7/30/2009 8:26 AM, Martijn de Munnik wrote:
> > I assume it is better to put the reject_unknown_recipient_domain and
> > reject_unverified_recipient controls after the rbls en policy services.
> > This way only address verification is needed when the mail passes the
> > rbls en policies?
>
> Actually, I think it should be the other way around...
>
> You want to put the least expensive checks first...
>
> reject_unverified_recipient is, I believe, much cheaper than RBL
> lookups... but maybe I'm wrong?
You're wrong, but your answer was not. That is, you're right, but not
for the reason you thought you were. :) Doing recipient validation is
the socially responsible thing to do, before wasting the RBL's limited
resources.
--
Offlist mail to this address is discarded unless
"/dev/rob0" or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
