-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] new smtpdcheckrules rpm available
>
> Hugh Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Darrell,
> >
> > admin is not a listed "user" in your new smt
Hugh Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Darrell,
>
> admin is not a listed "user" in your new smtpd_check_rules stuff. So no
> mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is coming in. I did check that mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _was_ coming to me by sending a message to that
address,
> but as SME mails messages w
Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> These two statements are inconsistent. EmailUnknownUser=return means
> just that. If you are going to drop the mail, it should be another
> option. Whether you want to return or drop is a site policy issue.
Gordon, if the new rule blocks/drops the mess
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:23:10PM -, Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Smith, Jeffery S (Scott)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Now, just one more option is needed: Mail to unknown users - drop.
>
> That is _exactly_ the way my contrib works. Let me rephrase:
>
> EmailUnknown
"Smith, Jeffery S (Scott)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Now, just one more option is needed: Mail to unknown users - drop.
That is _exactly_ the way my contrib works. Let me rephrase:
EmailUnknownUser = return, 'Mail to unknown users - drop'
Try it and you'll see ;->
Regards,
--
Darrell M
Now, just one more option is needed: Mail to unknown users - drop.
Forwarding to admin creates admin headaches, as we know.
Bouncing mail is simple and seemingly polite, but it also informs the
spammer that they've at least reached a functioning mail server. All that is
required is to start min
