That is a possible solution, though I don't know how managable it would be on the scale I would have to implement it on. Not that we have a lot of turn-over, per se, but as an ISP our customer base is in a constant state of flux. After a few months, badrcptto would be pretty big :-). Seems to me that the single biggest risk of putting this functionality into qmail would be the potential discovery of all valid mail addresses of our customers. That would be unfortunate. There might be a way to mitigate that risk somewhat, and that is one thing I need to look at before pursuing this issue any further. I pride myself on the security of all my systems, but I also pride myself on being able to offer a good set of services to our customers. It's a difficult balance sometimes.
Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 7:12 PM Subject: Re: Instant bounce? > Look in the recent archives. I seem to remember someone talking about that. > > Personally, I got sick of the double-bounced spam for ex-employees, so I > dump all the terminated employees out of ldap each night into the badrcptto > file. > > > From: "David Stults" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:55:06 -0800 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Instant bounce? > > > > Has anyone ever tried hacking qmail-ldap to create an smtpd that can look up > > recipient addresses on the fly and generate "instant" bounces (kind of like > > sendmail does)? It would add a bit of overhead for successful deliveries, > > but on my system it would cut down on 30 or 40 thousand extra spam messages > > per day from entering the queue for processing. > > > > Since I'm not 100% familiar with all of what qmail does to preserve > > security, I'm not sure why this feature does not already exist (or perhaps > > it does, and I'm looking in the wrong place). Has anyone here hacked their > > qmail to do it, or seen a patch that does? Or even better, is there just > > some huge security hole that would be opened up by doing it that I have > > missed? > > > > Dave > > > > > >
