On Monday 07 March 2005 18:20, Karolis Dautartas shaped the electrons to say: > >> True, but one typically does not have nearly as many users over their > >> quota than email addresses that don't exist (which are infinitely many). > >> Besides, Spamcop typically would not be able to test that - they have to > >> be very lucky to (1) find a mailbox that exist and (2) at the same time > >> find one that's full. > > AP> Spamcop is not testing your mail addresses. They have spam traps (mail > AP> adresses which never have used for mail) which should not recieved > AP> mails. This traps recievd bounces from you server. When now a spammer > AP> send mails to a couple of your users with a forged address, bounces > will AP> go out and when murphy want to a spamcop address. > > There is always an option to disable bounce messages :) > > It looks like in a couple of years nobody will be able to afford to > send bounce messages anyway, as they will occupy 99% of mail server's > traffic.
I have now reduced my 'time in queue' to 24hrs to help get bring down my remote queue because of bounce messages. This reduced my remote queue from 400,00+ to just 40,000 (across 8 servers) > > I have a couple of domains that recieve 5-20k emails per day at > random addresses. And there are several hundered domains on the mail > server. Imagine if all domains were like the first 2... > > Karolis What we will do to resolve this issue is try to write a patch to check the dash ext alternate addresses in ldap for the recipient checking. We have already done something like this to resolve the 'from' field in auto responses. -- slr. 'Dont queue mail with Sendmail, send mail with Qmail ... ' b0n0b0 #qmail on efnet key: 0x0B65ABDC - http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371
