On 1/19/06 11:21 AM, "Chris Knadle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:55, Tony Finch wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Chris Knadle wrote: >>> Well, I just became a backup MX for an admin that is using Postfix >>> that is making extensive use of these addresses with wildcards after the >>> local_part. >> >> Do you mean something like local_part_suffix? > > Unfortunately I'm not sure what you mean, either. ;-) > > An example entry I would look to do would be: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Which would match all of the following: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > etc. > >> Alternatively, you could just not bother to maintain a copy of the >> userlist and use recipient callout verification instead. > > Yes, I did think of that, and it is a good suggestion. I haven't suggested > that to the other admin yet, as I'm trying to avoid doing that as it > generates more traffic and this admin is on a somewhat slow static DSL line. I'm not sure recipient callout verification is really appropriate here. Aside from spammers trying to sneak in (lots of activity), the reason a message is presented to the backup MX is that the primary MX is unavailable. It's likely still to be unavailable when the callout is done. So then you generate a 4xx response, and the sender queues just as it would if there had been no backup. (Exactly what I've seen Postini do with messages to an unavailable (neighbor-to-us--lots of traffic) server to which Postini wants to forward the message after testing it.) It may well be better for there not to be a backup MX, unless the primary is protecting against multi-day outages. Of course, that may interfere with a business plan. --John Yahoo Groups behaves oddly with a 4xx response; I'm not sure what they do with an unreachable MX. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
