[ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 09:39:43 (-0700), Fred Viles wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...
>
> On 17 Jun 2005 at 0:03, Greg A. Woods wrote about
> "[exim] a large number of domains fr":
>
> |...
> | We do not like having to manually handle double bounces,
>
> "double bounces"? Requiring manual handling? Sounds like your smail
> setup is broken.
So Fred, what do you do with bounce messages in your queue that are not
deliverable? Do you eat them for breakfast? (do they taste good? do
you chew them very slowly or crunch them very fast? (are they cruncy?))
Do you stomp on them with your feet until they turn purple? Or do you
just throw them in the bit-bucket?
Though the argument for refusing to relay for any non-local sender is a
good one, it won't fly with most ISPs, especially not those who've been
offering to relay for non-local senders as a feature.
Using the AUTH name as the sender isn't really viable either because
often the local mailbox for the AUTH name is also forwarded to the
remote domain too.
> | but neither do
> | we wish to prevent our users from using their hosted-domains in their
> | sender addresses (nor is it possible with most common PC-based MUAs to
> | use a different envelope sender than the FROM address -- though I'm
> | eager to hear of any way to do that in any MUA).
>
> Pegasus Mail does, for one.
That's good to know, thanks! :-)
But all that's neither here nor there -- the real issue is that hundreds
of thousands of domains are now refusing _valid_ bounce messages.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <woods@???>
Planix, Inc. <woods@???> Secrets of the Weird <woods@???>
