From: mouss (moussnetoyen.net)
Date: Sat Apr 26 2008 - 06:32:26 CDT

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

René Nussbaumer wrote:
> This is a know fact yes. But think of a framework where you put
> front-end mailservers so the backend server can take care of distribute
> the mails to the mailboxes without the need of implementing the spam
> filtering again and again. In such an environment the backend mail
> servers are not even seen by the public.
>

In this case, this MX does not need to queue mail. it can tempfail if it
cannot validate the recipient.
> [snip]
>
> You've to do spam filtering anyway on these system the same way or else
> you will again end up with backscatter and in this case worse than with
> my patch.
>

No, there will be no backscatter except if you bounce spam and viruses,
which is a bad thing anyway.

>> Being a backup MX is no excuse to not have recipient validation. If you
>>
>
> Yes, my patch is providing a way in the middle of stupid accept all
> incoming emails and temporary reject the email because the recipient
> validation at that point can't work because of unreachable
> backend/primary MX.
>

according to your description, you patch causes postfix to accept mail
if it cannot validate the recipient. such mail will then bounce later.
>
>> are using reject_unverified_recipient and have caching turned on, you can
>> probably weather those few hours that the primary server is offline without
>> so much as a hiccup.
>>
>
> Depends on how good your cache is populated, I agree, but like I said in
> such circumstances my patch is not triggered.
>
> René
>

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