Markus Stumpf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 08:28:36AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'd be inclined to make the user valid and have their .qmail just be
> > a comment so that the bounces gets delivered to nowhere. Other than that you
> > have to sit it out.
>
> What I found has helped a lot in this situation are the "badrcptpatterns"
> and "badrcptto" patch that are part of the spamcontrol patch available at
> http://www.fehcom.de/qmail/qmail_en.html
> That already blocks the address at SMTP level and the messages don't
> have to go through the queue and the local delivery to get thrown away.
> Also saves connection time with your SMTP servers so your tcpserver
> slots don't get blocked long and have a higher turnaround time and it
> saves a lot of bandwidth.
> The bad thing about it is that it generates double bounces at the senders site.
>
Hey man!
It seems to be a great thing!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Augusto Fernandes (DAF tm) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GCSNet http://www.gcsnet.com.br/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Se voc� n�o encontra
o sentido das coisas
� porque este n�o
se encontra, se cria.
Antoine Saint-Exup�ry
