"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@???> wrote:
>
>When you accept incoming mail, you accept responsibility for handling
>it with reasonable care and diligence. That includes reporting
>non-delivery situations by means of the standard protocols.
Yup. I have no sympathy for senders that reject all bounces.
>Unless there's an overwhelming reason to accept mail from hosts that
>are known to behave that way, I'd vote for putting them into a
>blacklist with a special message.
Why not just let the callout do the job?
We don't use callouts here, partly because I'm waiting for the callout
cache patch to get integrated, and partly because they aren't all that
important unless there is a high cost of processing a message before
finding out that it'll bounce (e.g. virus and spam scanning). However
we do require that bounces have a valid sender in the headers using
something like the verify=header_sender documentation example.
>On the other hand, there's no point in listing a domain for callbacks
>if they accept any RCPT TO that you give them, and only reject bad
>ones later.
Actually there is: it means that they have to deal with the double
bounce not you.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@???>
http://dotat.at/
FORTIES CROMARTY FORTH TYNE: SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4, OCCASIONALLY 5 LATER.
SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
