New wiki page

[Alex Broens]

On 6/29/2009 5:19 PM, Gerry Maddock 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

I don't use greylisting - never will - wouldn't recommend it

lots of people swear by it, its obviously up to you to balance and decide.

Alex