New wiki page

[Gerry Maddock]

> > 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.

Greylisting gives the same 450 error. Are you saying greylisting should not
be used as best practice as well (instead use smtpd hard & soft error &
sleep times)? Just wondering.





CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and / or privileged information.  Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of any kind is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender via reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.  Thank you.