OT: Sendmail related...

[Rick Cooper]

I gathered from your OP that you are using sendmail so my exim acls would be
of no value to you. I will however say that I check for either mx or A
record first and if neither exist it stops there and the callout is never
made. 
 
And yes, I know a lot of services don't like it or callout verification
(which I wouldn't do if we were talking thousands of emails a day) but until
the general world of smtp changes or more people adopt some kind of signing
or spf I guess that is life. The thing that aggravates me is when I have to
deal with a huge joe job onslaught even though we publish hard fail spf
records for all of our domains (as well as DKIM and domainkeys).
 
I never do a callout verify on an incoming message for a domain/host that
returns an spf pass as they have already assumed some form of responsibility
for the message. since pretty much no one uses vrfy it would behoove the RFC
designers to look at something light weight, that works like and with dns,
to handle verification. A DNS record of type mtavrfy returning a host(s)
that handles verification for that domain, much like mx records. But that is
another thread all together for another group. 
 
It's also all I am going to say about callout anything as I don't plan on
joining an pro/anti thread in this forum
 
Rick

  _____  

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Alex Neuman
van der Hans
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:24 AM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: OT: Sendmail related...


Would you like to share? :-)

--- 
Regards, 

Alex Neuman
Reliant Technologies
Ph: +507 6781-9505
Skype: alexneuman
Twitter.com/AlexNeuman
Facebook.com/AlexNeumanvdH


On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:50 AM, "Rick Cooper" <rcooper at dwford.com> wrote:



I have done this for years and believe it or not there are still users that
don't get it and keep trying. To be fair however, outlook(express) doesn't
always return the actual error text from the MTA so they often end up
calling me and I look at the log and tell them to fix or verify the address.
The place you get into trouble is when the misspelled domain exists, but
doesn't accept mail, in which case you still end of with mail in a retry
status. Of course I have a process that checks for mail in a retry state
every 15 min and send me an email when there is something waiting.
 
Rick

  _____  

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Alex Neuman
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 10:54 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: Re: OT: Sendmail related...


Talking to myself here, just found one of the two things I was talking
about.

There's a milter called milter-chkrcpt (found using  <http://milter.org>
milter.org) that does a "call ahead" and rejects the e-mail if there are no
valid recipients. I'll give it a shot.



On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Alex Neuman < <mailto:alex at rtpty.com>
alex at rtpty.com> wrote:


Hi list,

I've been googling around and haven't been able to figure out *how* to look
for the following two things. Feel free to reply off-list if you think it's
not list-worthy material.

1. How do I change the "try to deliver for four days and then bounce back to
the sender" to, say, two days, when using sendmail?
2. Can I tell sendmail *not* to accept e-mail for domains that have no MX (I
know, "bad") or "no MX *and* no A" (not so bad) records in DNS? How about
with a milter?

The basic premise is that I've recently detected a surge in users that don't
seem to care about typos or that don't believe in address books. Mail gets
queued up and they don't have a clue until hours (or days) later that they
mistyped the domain name.

-- 
Alex Neuman van der Hans
Reliant Technologies
+507 6781-9505
+507 202-1525
 <mailto:alex at rtpty.com> alex at rtpty.com
Skype: alexneuman





-- 
Alex Neuman van der Hans
Reliant Technologies
+507 6781-9505
+507 202-1525
 <mailto:alex at rtpty.com> alex at rtpty.com
Skype: alexneuman

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-- 
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner

Before posting, read  <http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting>
http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website! 



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20090623/17c7b3b1/attachment.html