On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Ian Jackson wrote: Well, I'll deal with some of these, since I can. Some I cannot, at least not right now:
> 6. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be an alias for > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, I just did that. > 7. We insist that [EMAIL PROTECTED] should either bounce or be an > alias for [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm, someone else will have to do that. I'm not willing to fiddle with murphy since I have not studied the new setup. Are you sure this is true? I didn't find any mention of a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address after a few mins of random grepping, so this might be a general black hole for all unmatched lists addresses. > 10. Our Chairman has made informal requests, including mails to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] to correct this problem, and engaged in Must have just got forgotten.. Not sure, I can't read -admin these days, it gets too much spam. > 16. Mail for all unknown local parts @d.o is currently accepted. > 17. Accepting mail for unknown local parts is usually harmful, and > rejecting it at RCPT TO is beneficial both for the local system > and to assist other systems which do SMTP verification callouts. You found this is all untrue right? The relays will do this, but AFICT the primary should not. Jason
