Russell King wrote: >
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 05:08:28PM -0000, Ian Toogood wrote:
> > I know this is an old thread, but I'm having the same problem with
> MX's that > reject MAIL FROM: <> being blocked
>
> Bear in mind though that if MAIL FROM:<> is blocked, you will be unable
> to inform the sender that you were unable to deliver his mail to it's
> ultimate destination. Consider whether you really want to accept mail
> from such sites.
>
> It's far better IMHO for the remote sites to get fixed by some means,
> either by customers finding some other ISP who has a clue about their
> mail systems, or getting the senders administrator to fix the problem
> themselves.
> I agree on the above and below statements, but I have found that it is far
more likely that it is I, yes I, that have to contact the 'offending' site
myself as thier users completely ignore all pleas to contact their own
site administrators to get the problem resolved. So to keep my own
users/customers (both happy and paying) I must go through and whitelist
these sites (as such I now just 'score' and 'record' this for later use).
Now, just to make matters even worse, a lot of these companies that are
touting the 'put our spam-scan server infront of your mail server'
products have by default, and when not defaulted STRONGLY suggest that
the customer turn on all rules to reject NULL senders. Now that really
chaps my .... because we now have companies reporting that they
know more about email and SMTP than anyone else and are encouraging broken
MTA behavior :( argh! >
> The more people who reject mail from sites which don't accept MAIL
> FROM:<> the better IMHO.
> --
