On Mon, Dec 21, 1998 at 08:56:23PM -0000, Pollywog wrote:
> I just checked my log (Exim rejectlog) and there was an entry that
> indicated a mail rejection with the reason for rejection being:
>
> cannot route to sender <root@???>
>
> This is a good thing because it will reject much spam, but this
> particular mail was not spam, though it was sent from a dialup
> with a dynamic IP address.
The fact that it was sent from a dialup with a dynamic IP address
shouldn't be (unless you can show me otherwise) relevant to the fact
that the sender address was unroutable (and thus invalid).
If there's an RFC822-style address on a piece of mail, there *should*
be an MX for the domain in question that can be routed to - otherwise
no one in that domain will be able to get mail from the outside
world, ever, at all. And if they can't *get* mail, they shouldn't
be *sending* it. ;)
If the mail was *not* spam, you have someone on the other end who
has misconfigured their mail software, either at the client level
or the server level. It would be far more logical for them to
fix their misconfiguration than for you to "fix" your (most likely
completely correct) configuration in any way. :)
And yes, it does stop tons of spam. One of the three Exim servers
I run keeps logs 52 weeks back (yeah, a whole year, yay!). Over
the last year, it has rejected 473 messages for having unroutable
senders. Of those, I see a whopping 2 addresses that *might*
not have been spam. :)
-Dan (it's rejected many many more for other reasons)
--
Daniel Birchall, V.P. of Technology - djb@???
Digital Facilities Management, 609-4294777, FAX 4291481
132 Kings Highway East Suite A-1, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Internet/Consulting Services -
http://www.digitalfm.com
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
