On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:48:31AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > Out of curiousity, if this is such a good thing why are Alioth and > SourceForge the only two services (of the dozens of mailing lists from > half dozen or more services) which use this setup? Also, why is the > error message returned by the mail server not more clear?
Due to it being more widely supported in MTAs and server load issues you'll often see a much weaker variant which only does sender address verification using DNS (checking that there is a resolvable MX or A record for the domain but not verifying that it can be used). From what you're saying you'll have been passing the weaker variants. The general idea with this class of checks is that if the sender does not care if the message is delivered (since they haven't provided a return address that can accept bounces they won't be informed of any errors) then the receiver may as well save the effort of trying the delivery. As with other anti-spam measures you will also see this deployed in conjunction with other measures so the individual checks aren't directly visible themselves: for example, the trigger levels for spam filtering or the timeouts used in greylisting could be adjusted based on the deliverabiliy of the sender. > > sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical > No offense, but that is completely non-scalable. That only works for a > small number of users which does not change frequently. Anyhow, thanks > to 'Dato, I seem to have been able to convince mutt to play nicer with > your mail server. The usual approach is to ensure that your system generates a valid envelope sender by default. For systems that host users with many domains the default is normally chosen to be the underlying account on the hosting system. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
