On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:31:49AM +0100, Alan J. Flavell said:
> But surely the purpose of the exercise is to defend against abusive
> use of the secondary? Which means ideally we want a three-way switch:
>
> 1: primary says recipient is OK, then the secondary should tell the
> sender to go and use the primary instead (i.e defer the sender), in
> the hope that spammers won't bother
>
> 2: primary says recipient is bad - then 5xx, as you say below.
>
> 3: primary does not respond to callout - then the secondary has to
> accept the mail "blind" (subject to its other anti-spam measures),
> otherwise the secondary MX is of no benefit for bona fide mails.
>
> > If the callout fails (ie the destination server positively rejects
> > the recipient), then that reject will be passed up the line.
>
> No disagreement there.
>
> all the best
<AOL>
This is exactly what I would like to do, but it seems like a very
difficult ACL to write, for some reason.
</AOL>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | Death rays don't kill people, people |
| steve@??? | kill people!! |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
