On 6/22/04 at 10:35, Michael wrote:
> If you have a secondary/backup mail server that is accepting all mail
> then I would think that routing unknown to NULL might be a good way to
> not send bounces
Possibly (the message has already been accepted by the back-up, so the
proverbial horse is already through the gate), but the situation in this
thread doesn't involve a back-up server.
> If you only have one server and it is SIMS then it should not send a
> bounce back to the fake return address it should only tell the sending
> server that the address is not valid.
Right, and it's better not to circumvent that process by routing unknown
recipients to NULL. Let SIMS and SMTP work the way they're intended to.
> On Jun 22, 2004, at 12:18 PM, Global Homes Webmaster wrote:
>
> > On 6/22/04 at 07:20, Paul Galati wrote:
> >
> >> I am not an ISP and only really maintain about 60 accounts. I have
> >> multiple log files open all day and check on the filtered log looking
> >> for system(pop). If there is a legitimate mistake, I can inform that
> >> user of it. Spammers are playing an ugly game, and I am just trying
> >> to live with them.
> >
> > Just one more time for form's sake and then I'll stop beating my
> > head against the wall: For reasons already given earlier in this
> > thread, it really is better to _not_ route UNKNOWN to NULL and to
> > just let SIMS bounce messages to unknown addresses and tempban
> > address harvesters as appropriate.
--
Christopher Bort | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webmaster, Global Homes | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://www.globalhomes.com/>
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
