On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 08:35:16PM -0500, Jeff Rife wrote: > > Note, by the way, that you really want to test this at RCPT To time, > > so you can exempt addresses like abuse@ and postmaster@ from the DNS > > blacklists, so users who are incorrectly placed on those blacklists > > can still contact you. > > This brings up another question that's somewhat related to David's not > accepting e-mail for "postmaster" from "<>". > > What's the thought about rejecting an e-mail to postmaster, abuse, > etc., if there are other recipients that aren't in the "required to > exist" RFC list?
I don't think the RFC (but I haven't looked it up) makes an exception here. Ie: you'll have to accept it. > Basically, what I do now is look for those key addresses in > filter_recipient and don't reject at that stage if it is one of those, > and then in filter_begin I scan the @Recipients list for any of them, > and also don't reject (except for viruses). > > But, some spam creeps through that is addressed to at least one of them > and some other address. If you want to solve it RFC compliant, you can do two things: either move the mail for the "other" recipients to a spamfolder (or just junk it), or, slightly more work: in case you have multiple recipients, reject combinations of postmaster and abuse with other users at filter_recipient time by tempfailing them with "too many recipients". -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
