mailsewer etiquette
I run a secondary MX for an ex-colleague's domain, in exchange for him doing the same for me. I have noticed recently that particular messages get stuck in my queue for him, despite his server being up. Judging from the sender addresses, they're spam. Question is - is it polite for him to reject messages coming from his MX secondaries, for reasons such as ... 2003-03-03 18:05:00 18ptde-0002y1-00 == [EMAIL PROTECTED] T=remote_smtp defer (0): SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:27155_12766_200303031042~2602e1f [EMAIL PROTECTED] SIZE=3673: host mailroute r.latency.net [209.123.200.18]: 450 27155_12766_200303031042~2602e1fd06ada994ea [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sender address rejected: Domain not found especially as he sends a 450, which is SO wrong, as I damned well know that the destination address exists. -- David Cantrell | Looking for work | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/cv This is nice. Any idea what body-part it is?
Re: mailsewer etiquette
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David Cantrell wrote: I run a secondary MX for an ex-colleague's domain, in exchange for him doing the same for me. I have noticed recently that particular messages get stuck in my queue for him, despite his server being up. Judging from the sender addresses, they're spam. Question is - is it polite for him to reject messages coming from his MX secondaries, for reasons such as ... r.latency.net [209.123.200.18]: 450 27155_12766_200303031042~2602e1fd06ada994ea [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sender address rejected: Domain not found especially as he sends a 450, which is SO wrong, as I damned well know that the destination address exists. It's not the recipient address his server is bitching about but rather the sender address. Obviously your ex-collegue has set his mail server up to be very strict in who it accepts email from. Sending a 450 is probably the correct behaviour as a name resolution failure at his end may be the result of a temporary DNS failure. My own feeling on this is that if you are going to offer secondary MX it is a good idea to either have very similar policies in this regard or simply to accept that you will end up with lots of timed out messages and failed bounces in your queue for n (often 5) days. UKFSN offers this service on a commercial basis and I've decided to accept that we'll see such failed messages however our backup MX server is dedicated to the job so resources are not a problem. Are you really seeing so many messags that it has become a serious issue for you? Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ Get the T-Shirt Now
Re: mailsewer etiquette
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:27:34AM +, Jason Clifford wrote: On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David Cantrell wrote: especially as he sends a 450, which is SO wrong, as I damned well know that the destination address exists. It's not the recipient address his server is bitching about but rather the sender address. According to RFC 821, a 450 status means mailbox unavailable. Are you really seeing so many messags that it has become a serious issue for you? No, it's just a bit irritating. -- David Cantrell | Looking for work | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/cv We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. -- Richard Dawkins
Re: mailsewer etiquette
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, David Cantrell wrote: especially as he sends a 450, which is SO wrong, as I damned well know that the destination address exists. It's not the recipient address his server is bitching about but rather the sender address. According to RFC 821, a 450 status means mailbox unavailable. Yes the code means that however I think we all know that many folks use whatever 4xx number they've seen before just to indicate a temporary failure and rely upon the message text to inform of the actual error condition. Are you really seeing so many messags that it has become a serious issue for you? No, it's just a bit irritating. Yes I know. I regularly check up on our backup MX server and manually remove messages that are obviously dead. I suppose I could just leave it however this way there are fewer futile delivery attempts. Jason Clifford -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ Get the T-Shirt Now
