> 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 is obsolete but I found it very useful for this kind of bounce.
Does this mean a:
Deferred: 451 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Sender domain must resolve
Is the patch available for retrieval, or are you kind to attach it to me?
Or do I misunderstand you here, and this actually check to see if the host exist
before bouncing the message? If this is so, I think this probably takes away a small
amount of the doublebounces, but the common situation is that I get:
550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... User unknown
when my qmail has sent away a bounce for an nonexistent recipient.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IDG New Media Einar Bordewich
System Manager Phone: +47 2205 3034
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Balazs Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Einar Bordewich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: Check the RCPT TO: against
> 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 is obsolete but I found it very useful for this kind of bounce.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)
>
>
