On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:05:01 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> sender_verify tends to take its own time about it, politely assuming that the
> sending mailserver has a DNS problem - and returns 4xx errors the first few
> times. A straightforward "550 Get lost spammer" works far better for me.
If that works for you, great. However, in an environment where you're
offering a corporate pop-before-smtp relay service, an immediate "Get
lost spammer" [1] because of a transient DNS failure isn't smart.
Policy is policy, but be careful about suggesting to people that they
employ hardline policies like the one you use without first finding out
about their environment. Or at least warn them of the potential
consequences.
From where I sit, I can see why Exim's default sender verification
handling is a sensible default. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
[1] I've actually watched someone being verbally raked over the coals
for exposing a legitimate customer to an undeserved "F*** off,
spammer" message. Wording can be an issue. ;-)
