> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Kinz > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:53 PM > Subject: Re: Changes to sendmail.mc in the new Sendmail patch > > > < dnl FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl > > --- > > > FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl > > > > Now, I can understand why Redhat would choose to be conservative, > > and set the port option to localhost only (127.0.0.1), but I'm > > puzzled as to why they have turned on the "accept_unresolvable_domains" > > option. > > > > Any opinions? > > Scary, very scary - anybody wanna be a spammer's self service site ? >
I don't see whats so scary. Plus, I think redhat's comments within the sendmail.mc file about the accept_unresolvable_domains feature are good enough for someone to make an informed decision on which way to go. i.e. resolver libs available at bootup. FWIW: I just grep'd a months worth of maillog files looking for rejections based on MTA's not being resolvable. Out of 105,507 inbound e-mails -- only 264 were rejected with the "Domain of sender address ... does not resolve" Big Whoop!!! Personally, I'm now thinking about accepting unresolvables and then letting spamassassin catch these and move them to /dev/null vs. sendmail sending a DSN back to the sending MTA that does not give a $hit... Anyway, thats my opion. Steve Cowles -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
