eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Charles Cazabon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Why is it ridiculous? Mail sometimes can't be delivered; hosts are
> > down, networks are down, services are down or busy, users make typos.
> > "A few" depends on a lot of things; if your server handles a hundred
> > messages a day, maybe "a few" == 5 or 10. If your server handles
> > millions of messages a day, "a few" might be in the tens of thousands.
>
> It's ridiculous because if qmail-send could do the lookup and
> reject for invalid users, I would not have hardly any bounced
> messages.
qmail-send doesn't have anything to do with accepting mail over the
network; it doesn't care. qmail-smtpd has that job, assisted by
tcpserver. qmail-smtpd doesn't know anything about local users or
virtual domains or anything; it's part of the security design of qmail
to segment/separate the tasks involved. Giving qmail-smtpd knowledge of
users, domains, etc violates that separation.
> > Okay, so whoever runs postmastergeneral.com needs to be educated about
> > running mailing lists. No surprise there.
>
> Yep. But getting them to change is gonna be darn near impossible.
If you (and others) start refusing to accept mail from them (my last
suggestion), they may start to care very quickly. I would guess their
business depends on it (I know nothing about them).
> Someone, somewhere must have come up with a workaround/patch for this.
Yes; someone did post a patch to the qmail list which basically copied
all of qmail-send's checks into qmail-smtpd. I don't think it's
commonly used, as I haven't seen it mentioned since. You should be able
to find it in the list archives.
> > > Instead, it relies on the qmail-local (or in my case, vdelivermail
> > > since I'm using vpopmail) to send a bounce. However, it looks like
> > > postmastergeneral.com (and others) is not removing addresses from
> > > lists based on the bounce messages that I'm sending.
> >
> > So the problem is with them, not qmail.
>
> Again, getting them to change will be darn near impossible. But, the real
> point here is that I'm wondering if there is any way to change the default
> bounce message to something they will process.
It's easy to change the format of the bounce messages, but why do it?
qmail's bounces messages are _easier_ to parse than most other MTAs.
See http://cr.yp.to/proto/qsbmf.txt for a description of the format. If
you do want to change the bounce messages, please adhere to QSBMF.
> > > Anybody got any ideas on how to solve this?
> >
> > Use tcpserver to refuse all connections from pm0.net. Voila, no more
> > problem.
> >
>
> tcpserver (unless patched) requires IP ADDRESSES.
No longer true. tcpserver accepts hostnames just fine, with appropriate
syntax. See the documentation for tcpserver for details.
> And, pm0.net is not the only one I'm having problems with -
> edirectnetwork.net is another. And I'm sure there are others, but
> these two are by far the biggest problems.
So refuse mail from them as well. There's no law that says you have to
accept SMTP connections from everyone on the planet. Perhaps they'll
clean up their act if they can't reach half their list members.
> PLUS, there is legitimate mail coming in from both of those servers
> for valid users. Doing it this way, I'd be blocking that as well.
Yes -- that's the whole idea. Those "legitimate" users then start
complaining to their provider, who probably cares more about the people
who send them money each month.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
