> On 17.03.09 14:02, Michael Hutchinson wrote: > >> We initially tried 'riding out the storm' as it were, but were unable > >> to keep on top of the load put on the servers by excessive E-Mail > >> messages requiring scanning by SA. This got so bad that the mailserver > >> had become unresponsive to our clients. > > > qmail is known for bouncing, instead of rejecting unknown recipients > > at SMTP leve. You filter unknown > > recipients? If not, this is your problem.
On 19.03.09 09:54, Michael Hutchinson wrote: > If an smtproutes entry forces me to accept unknown recipients for said > affected domain, then Yes, and I would assume that this is the > behaviour. Oh, yes, smtproutes is a problem. Not good until we'll all have some clean way how to detect valid and invalid customers. > >> I was considering convincing the powers to let me setup SPF, but their > >> requirement would be to have both v1 and v2 spf tags - and I'm not sure > >> whether Q-Mail is up to both yet, but some kind of SPF implementation > >> where we check the tags (not necessarily publish them) > > >> but I guess that's an MTA question:) > > >forget SPF v2. Use v1 but don't expect huge results, there's still many > >SMTP servers not checking the SPF... > > OK, What's wrong with SPF v2 ? I think we should better google for it, but iirc SPF v2 is based on Microsoft's idea that has some logical and some patent issues. Does anyone here know more/better about SPF v2? -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. Boost your system's speed by 500% - DEL C:\WINDOWS\*.*
