David S. Madole wrote:
> Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>>As you know there are moron sys admins wh reject all standard bounce
>>messages. So when to do callout verification you get:
>>
>>HELO ctyme.com
>>250 helo MRLRY
>>mail from: <>
>>501 bogus mail from
>>
>>So - first - I want to be able to detect this condition where the from
>><> is considered bogus immediately before any rcpt to:.
>>
>>Then - I'd like a script to auto report them to rfc_ignorant.org
>>
>>I think if we don't start pressuring people to play by the rules then
>>we lose the rules.
>
>
> Some people don't consider callouts to be playing by the rules.
>
> Do you have "VRFY" enabled on your server? If not, why not?
>
> Maybe the person running this server doesn't care about your attempts to
> use callouts to duplicate the service that "VRFY" is supposed to provide.
> If you want to verify recipients' addresses, why don't you just "play by
> the rules" and use "VRFY" to do this?
>
> The rules say that "<>" is to be used for delivery of status
> notifications. Your using it for callouts is not "playing by the rules".
> If the other guy decides he doesn't care about status notifications,
> that's his decision, just as it's your decision to use mail from "<>" as
> a substitute for "VRFY".
>
> Maybe I just missed the RFC that describes and/or advocates callouts? If
> so, I'll gladly accept a pointer.
Let me be *very precise*:
* If somebody uses the callouts anyway then it is a good idea to report
detected misbehaving domains to DSN at RFC-Ignorant.
* I do not suggest that postmasters should start to use the callouts just to
get something to report to DSN at RFC-Ignorant
--
Andrzej [en:Andrew] Adam Filip anfi@??? anfi@???
Home Page
http://anfi.homeunix.net/ [ PageRank 6 ]
