New wiki page

[Alex Broens]

On 6/29/2009 4:35 PM, Steve Freegard wrote:
> Alex Broens wrote:
>> "works for me" != advisable  != 100% safe != under your controll != BCP
> 
> Technically there is no problem with the method.
> 
> The issue is a moral one - people using this should realise that the
> owner of tarbaby could very easily start collecting or rejecting mail
> received for your domain either maliciously or by accident and as people
> using this service have no contract with the provider therefore have no
> comeback should this happen.
> 
> Whilst the same could be said of any blacklists (they could reject all
> your mail either maliciously, on purpose or by accident), but pointing
> one of your MX records to a 3rd party goes a step further than this and
> could allow someone to collect your mail without your knowledge.  For
> example: instead of sending 451 at DATA, they could easily do it after
> the message has been sent (at dot) and you'd be none the wiser.  It
> would still function the same as it does now except a copy of the
> message could be kept.
> 
> At the end of the day - it's all about trust.

+ not all senders treat a 450 as such.

There an $unknown_count of weird apps out there which don't requeue and 
will silently drop a msg after a temp fail.