Sam writes: > Is it only my opinion that rblsmtpd returns a temporary error code, > for no good reason, so that the blacklisted relay keeps banging at > your server for two weeks, until the mail bounces? It's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact. And it's wrong. rblsmtpd gives you the choice between code 553, telling legitimate clients to bounce the message immediately, and code 451, giving innocent relay operators a chance to fix the problem. Read the fucking manual. ---Dan
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Justin Bell
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Peter C. Norton
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Dave Sill
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Vendors and tied hands Len Budney
- Re: Vendors and tied hands Edward S. Marshall
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail johnjohn
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Sam
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail ddb
- Example of the anti-fax effect D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Sam
- Re: Example of the anti-fax effect Russell Nelson
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distributing qmail Scott Schwartz
