On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Einar Bordewich wrote:
> I must confess that I'm a little unsure what I really want...... My
> problem is that 95% of bounced mail, is typical doublebounce, where a user
> that don't exist anymore (at my servers) has received mail and that bounce
> at my side. A spamer don't use a correct address, so I then get the
> doublebounce back. Another problem I then get, is the overview of
> "correct" bounces where there is a misspellings of some sort, that I then
> could correct. Today I don't do this a 100%, since most of the "correct"
> bounce mail drowns with the rest.
I have a patch for qmail which denies posting to nonexisting host names. It
does with an extra DNS query. A lot of people say that this kind of check
is obsolete but I found it very useful for this kind of bounce.
> I can't see that I'm helping anybody with ignoring mail to non-existing
> (known) users. I think I would be more help to my customers by getting the
> bounces down. Then again, I can concentrate more on the issue about open
> relays, by have my users (that exist) to report back to us about SPAM mail
> they have received. Here I can use some more energy to block SPAM.
Well, denying posting to nonexisting users is a security hole. Denying
nonexisting hosts isn't - you can get this info yourself.
--
Regards: Kevin (Balazs)
