Peter Hardy wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 14:10 +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008, Voytek Eymont wrote: >>> is there any req on me having an 'apache@' address if I'm sending >>> emails as such ? >>> >>> (i.e., who misconfigured their server ?) >> Sender address verification is a fairly common anti-spam technique. >> RFC 2821 allows for mail to be rejected based on local policy, and the >> remote end has chosen to implement a policy whereby the return address >> must verifiably exist (in the sense of being able to receive the first >> part of an SMTP transaction) before accepting mail. So it's not a >> configuration that violates the protocol, that I can see. >> >> Whether it's a totally sensible configuration is another question: it >> tends to interact badly if the sender address in turn greylists incoming >> mail, for example. But it's unlikely to be accidental on their part. > > I for one think it's perfectly cromulent. If the sender MX utilises > greylisting then it'll send back a transient failure message as distinct > from a permanent 550 failure. At that point, the receiving MX can either > assume a transient failure means it's normally a valid address and > accept the mail, or give back its own transient failure - an eye for an > eye if you like. > If that's a problem, I'm more inclined to blame it on greylisting. > Introducing needless artificial delays strikes me as an incredibly ugly > solution for dealing with spam. >
Can we try changing the subject of this thread? All messages are being moderated. Fil -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
