From: Noel Jones (njonesmegan.vbhcs.org)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2006 - 11:53:45 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 11:36 AM 8/29/2006, Robert Fitzpatrick wrote:
>I implemented address verification using
>smtpd_recipient_restrictions in
>Postfix 2.3.1, now a heavy POP load on the destination
>mail server. I
>was planning to move my user lists to LDAP to relieve the
>issue, but
>googling I found a post by Weitse on the subject...
>
>http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2006-06/1485.html

What does a heavy POP load have to do with postfix?
The link doesn't appear to have anything to do with users
lists in LDAP, and I am not Wietse.
Generally speaking, any kind of database or dictionary user
lookup is preferred to address verification probes. Use
address verification probes as a last resort.

>I know this is 2004, is this still ill-advised? Or perhaps
>someone can
>suggest a re-positioning of parameters in my main.cf? I
>implemented
>address verification to avoid filtering unknown users
>putting extra
>loads on the servers using amavisd-new and SA:

Since address verification is fairly "expensive", you will
get better results putting "reject_unverified_recipient" as
far down the list as possible. It's not unreasonable to
put it at the very end.

>I did notice the missing comma at the end of the second
>line above, is
>this not required? Doesn't seem to effect anything or
>perhaps I don't
>know what to look for in the logs?

The comma is not required, but is usually included to make
the file easier for humans to read.

--
Noel Jones

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]