(You should prefix 'http://' in front of URL's in posts, it's easier to click on them than to copy and paste into the browser)
That MSDN article really points out how much more difficult it is to admin and configure Exchange to do anything past running SETUP.EXE. In Exchange it looked like it took 10 minutes of clicking around in various dialog boxes and navigating tabs and checkboxes. Here's what the 909linux mail server does: (using postfix) RCPT TO: [email protected] 550 <[email protected]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table It takes all of 2 minutes to edit postfix/main.cf and add these 2 lines: local_recipient_maps = $alias_maps unix:passwd.byname unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550 (And if you're not running a mailing list, or don't have any virtual domains, you may be able to leave off the '$alias_maps' token) It seems that you have answered your own question, because everyone uses 550's. Were you looking for justification that sending back a 550 error response was what you were wanting to do? What are you looking for? As for an actual solution? or how I personally would do this? I would install a mail proxy box, running postfix, have it do all the nice and nasty stuff like screening out bad IP's, greylisting, tar-pitting, SPF, anti-virus scanning, invalid-user/550 responses, whatever... and then if the customer really wants to have an Exchange server, then the postfix machine can just nicely relay only the good messages to the internal Exchange server. Roger E. Rustad, Jr. wrote: > n*x dudes: > > Even though I deal with Microsoft Exchange (unlike everyone here, I > guess), I'm hoping that you might help me figure out the best way to > reject "bad" mail -- NDR or 550-5.5.1? > > Issuing a "non-delivery report" (NDR) for each undeliverable mail > received costs me bandwidth, CPU load, and disk space. Exchange wants > to do this by default, unlike Sendmail. > > A 550-5.5.1, as I understand, (e.g. > blogs.msdn.com/dlemson/archive/2003/10/17/52019.aspx), tells the > sending MTA to bounce the reply to the sender of the email, rather > than having me bounced it back. This saves a huge load on my mail > queue. > > I am bombarded by spammers (one user alone got like 4000 emails in his > inbox when I rebuilt an Exchange server this weekend) and am looking > for some good ways to deal with this load. > > Roger > _______________________________________________ > 909linux mailing list > [email protected] > http://909linux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/909linux
