[sendmail] Skipping rbl per domain

[Joost Waversveld]

Ya, I know, but we are hosting a lot of different domains, not just one 
domain.

We use the mailserver Imail on Windows for now. We are planning to 
change this, but this will not be in the near future I think. Should 
milter-ahead work with Imail?? If so, it's an option we can think of 
implementing...

Our vision for now is that we do not want to through any email, if not 
necessary. It's up to the customer to decide this.

Now I'm busy with the RBL in sendmail on per-domain basis, because some 
of the domains generate so much SPAM, that it is abnormal.

Aaron K. Moore wrote:
> If you are hosting individual e-mail accounts, then you should give
> milter-ahead a second look.  All it does is verify that the recipient's
> e-mail address really exists by querying the internal mail server
> hosting the domain.  If it does not exist, then it rejects the e-mail.
> 
> That way you're not chewing up processing time with MailScanner scanning
> e-mails that are only going to be rejected because the account doesn't
> exist.  
> 
> I used to have a lot of those messages clogging my outbound mail queue
> on my MailScanner box until I started using milter-ahead.
> 
> Joost Waversveld wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> That are indeed very good options but we are an hosting-provider and
>> we want the customer to decide what is SPAM and what is not. Only for
>> the customer who really understands what is happening and what it
>> means, we want to implement this features. Also, at the moment we use
>> windows mailservers with MailScanner in front of them. I did not
>> investigate yet if these milters will work with the mailserver.
>>
>> I'll keep them in mind for the future. Thanx for the information.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Joost Waversveld
>>
> < snip >
>>> I'd look at  milter-ahead or sender-verification
>>> (http://smfs.sourceforge.net/smf-sav.html, which can also so
>>> recipient verification) so reduce your load too.
>>>
>>> i drop over 66% of my inbound traffic this way.
>