On 2006-08-27 04:03:43 +0200, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2006, at 16:49, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> >I guess it is my damned duty to read the postmaster and abuse
> >addresses even if they come from hosts that would be blocked.
>
> Not answering your question, but personally I disagree that you have
> to read mail to abuse@ or postmaster@ if you are not accepting mail
> from the host otherwise.
>
> As long as there's a reasonable rejection message ("551 Didn't like
> your IP", "551 Listed on ...", etc) rather than just "556 Mail to
> postmaster@ not accepted") of course.
551 is "user not local", so that would have to be 550 in all cases (you
can distinguish with an extended status code (e.g. "5.1.1 Bad destination
mailbox address" vs. "5.7.1 Delivery not authorized, message
refused").
But speaking of 551 return codes, I think using 551 with
one-time-addresses should be valid:
rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
551 Mailbox disabled. Please try <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
rcpt to:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 ok
I just fear tham spamware would make use of this rather quickly, if it
was widely used.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Schlagfertigkeit ist das, was einem
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | auf dem Nachhauseweg einfällt.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Lars 'Cebewee' Noschinski in dasr.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
