From: Ben Rosengart (floatpanix.com)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 19:14:56 CST

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

On Nov 26, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 04:00:27PM -0800, Ben Rosengart wrote:

>> Given that the internet is plagued by backscatter, this seems like
>> the wrong assumption to me. In Postfix's default configuration,
>> rewriting does not cure the problem, and a bounce, which might be
>> backscatter, is generated, and smtpd's default stance should reflect
>> this fact.
>
> Note that for inbound MX hosts, recipient validation generally takes
> care of this problem, so the issue primary applies to MSA systems and
> relays without recipient validation (where in this case we actually
> have
> an invalid recipient, but don't reject even this case).

A correctly-configured MSA knows its customers, so backscatter is not
too big a concern. But even so, an SMTP error code now is generally
better than a bounce later.

> This should not be necessary, recipients matching virtual_alias_maps
> should likely be exempted,

This would seem to cover most cases where the proposed change would
break existing configs.

--
  Ben Rosengart

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBR0tvkF+JVDL+b2nKAQIxaQf5AeneZWmsq8tNh9b+7yL1Tzhh0wkAWq/3
nM/XgIcC5lCcaRjUexn7U8plnBVLOPMtFR3aacTqopM7WeaHBLd6GgiNOC06MFDc
NJ0ZhyDs9Ko0Ni7G7pfvJA/riKdv0ULYUMx5ao0RKENWJ+p/VVPGncib9pmzpTsi
4nx5xtX7s5P6xvo0h/FPmWPKVs40KM7fJZ3Qz2ykIjzByxEKYsjQeIIvE/cxYOx/
uCP1HvDpvY/rsmPuXkWOzLS2u5YZnfspOa/gWuRVxhuMqzrMyVVn9LNvyq5ZhdkC
9UgMJAivez0GoYQ/EsbkNhctjhOKWNSDXc5CQ4DvXdUFIEcuCprvaw==
=Y7Ko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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