> >I'd like to use this, but got hurt by > >reject_unknown_client > > how so? I haven't really heard anybody complaining about it.
Only worried about poorly done DNS, but seems I misunderstood this filter > >They are the bunches that we communicate with over healthcare matters > >routinely. > > whitelists work Have had to whitelist so many, alas... > >Should I be worried? > > I don't think so Thanks > you already have your nice little script that reports to/from addresses of > rejects. a good tool, use to what these kinds of rejects, too. white_list > as needed. Thats where i see things before the execs start yelling foul > this is not a DNS check. Thanks, misunderstood initially > postfix gets a msg from [EMAIL PROTECTED], and tries to send from > postmaster@imgatebox to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if earthlink (exists > and) says "unknown user firemann816", the postfix rejects the msg from > firemann816. > > Today, I convinced two fairly high volume, badly hammered ISP's I work with > to let me implement reject_verified_sender. So far, after 1000's of new > rejects with this filter, neither is screaming about false positives, > and the results are extremely encouraging (even without harvesting the > rejects for ip's and sender.domain). Than I'm sold, I'm low volume... THANKS -A
