Autor: Alan J. Flavell Data: A: Dave C. CC: Exim users list Assumpte: Re: [Exim] Wish list (I think) regarding sender verify callout.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Dave C. wrote:
> While this is ideal, the problem is its a technical issue that they dont
> understand, and they 'dont have problems mailing anywhere else', so it
> must be our problem. Often if its a business with their own server, they
> either have no admin, or the admin they have isnt really qualified to
> even understand the issue, let alone fix it. And in some cases some
> source they trust has told them it heps block spam. In the meantime,
> your customer that cant get mail from this party is pressuring you to
> 'fix the problem'...
Translation: if they applied for a franchise to run a postal service,
they'd be laughed out of the licensing court for their lack of
technical competence. Yet somehow we're supposed to accept that this
is normal behaviour on the Internet, much the same as "Korean mail
servers don't support the postmaster address"?
> Callbacks as an antispam measure can be fantastic, but until a large
> enough percentage of sites use them to begin pressuring non "<>"
> accepting MTA's to start doing so, they cant get in the way of otherwise
> legitimate mail,
Excuse me, but it's not the callbacks that are getting in the way of
otherwise legitimate mail, it's those badly-configured servers.
You're saying that under pressure from your users, you're willing to
break specified procedures. We can't stop anyone from making that
choice (and occasionally we'd do the same, to be honest - after having
made a bit of a fuss), but at least let's identify where the fault
lies.
> even if its from a domain whose server is broken that way.
Perhaps we should publish an alternative mail domain, like
gateway-for-broken-senders.mydomain.example - or can someone think of
a more-demeaning form of words - and tell those kind of users they
have to use that until their brokenness has been fixed?
