OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: Incessant Bounces
From: Vivek Khera (kherakciLink.com)
Date: Tue Aug 22 2000 - 13:30:08 CDT

>>>>> "RFG" == Ronald F Guilmette <rfgmonkeys.com> writes:

RFG> I know from direct experience that quite a lot of spam gets sent
RFG> out with totally 100% bogus MAIL FROM domains, and virtually zero
RFG> legitimate mail gets sent with bogus MAIL FROM domains, so
RFG> rejecting mail when the MAIL FROM domain is bogus is definitely a
RFG> Good Idea. I'm 100% convinced of that.

Yes, except for one tiny little Herndon, VA company I tend to get mail
from:

 RCPT from unknown[216.168.233.68]: 450
 <daemonopsmail.networksolutions.com>: Sender address rejected:
 Domain not found; from=<daemonopsmail.networksolutions.com>
 to=<kherakciLink.com>

This happens regularly, and they don't seem to care when you tell them
about it.

RFG> In case (b), if the error is something strange, like for example a DNS
RFG> `NO_RECOVERY' or `NETDB_INTERNAL' error, then I think it is proper
RFG> for the mail server to just issue a 5xx (permanent) SMTP error to the
RFG> client, because in such cases, something is VERY screwed up in the DNS
RFG> service, either on the sender's end or on the recipient's end, and it

So what if they notice within a couple of hours and fix it. In your
method, the mail would have been rejected already. The way it should
be (and that I think it is) is that you should assume the problem will
be fixed shortly and retry.

I agree that a "definite no" answer should be rejected immediately,
and I believe it is. 

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D.                Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: kherakciLink.com       Rockville, MD       +1-301-545-6996
GPG & MIME spoken here            http://www.khera.org/~vivek/