Sheldon Hearn [exim-users] <28/06/01 17:20 +0200>:
> 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.
This seems to be a communication gap. I use sender_verify for the case you
mention - and I'm happy with the 4xx it returns. As I control a fairly large
corporate network or two (and some mobile phone <-> sms gateway servers) I
can't return a 550 on transient dns failures.
However, for deliberately broken dns (spammers configuring their MXs to point
to an IP, or just rejecting mail from:<> and stuffing my queue full of junk)
I prefer to use sender_reject.
That's all I said. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.
--suresh
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian <--> mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin
