Bounce <-> Bounce <-> Bounce
michele at BLACKNIGHTSOLUTIONS.COM
Sun Jun 27 00:03:27 IST 2004
On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 18:51 -0400, Timothy M. Lyons wrote:
> Umm... that would not be in the spirit of RFC-2142.
I honestly don't think the authors of that RFC could have envisaged the
level of problems that catch all aliases cause, so I would disagree with
For example, I have one domain which has two valid users. No others. If
I enable the catchall it will get approximately 2000 spam emails and
bounces every 24 - 48 hours. It's a lot better for all parties concerned
to drop those mails at the MTA level.
Or. to cite another example, if we allow catch all aliases when they are
not required we get swamped with support calls from distraught clients
who receive bounces from mails they never sent, warnings about viruses
hitting non-existent mailboxes and a whole lot more
Now, although I would be in favour of being RFC compliant I have to be
realistic. If you follow the guidelines in that RFC you can end up
causing far more problems than you solve.
-------------------------- MailScanner list ----------------------
To leave, send leave mailscanner to jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk
Before posting, please see the Most Asked Questions at
http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/ and the archives at
More information about the MailScanner