From: "Kang , Joseph S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: John Fawcett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > From: "Chris Santerre"
> > > Well there is no Sendmail list that I know of, so you guys are the
> > > next
> > best
> > > source. I just realized today that sendmail is checking
> > RBLs _BEFORE_
> > > checking to see if the user is legit. OUCH!
> > >
> > > Seems like quite a waste of time. Is this because of delay_checks
> > > being enabled?
> > >
> > > IF this is in the Oreily book, I'm sorry for asking. I've only read
> > > 1/4 of it, and well, SARE started :) Kind of took up my
> > reading time.
> > >
>
> Chris, delay_checks on or off doesn't matter. I used RBLs in SENDMAIL
with
> delay_checks off.
>
> I think it's working as designed. If the message is in an RBL drop it.
No
> point in seeing if it's for a valid user or not. I mean, that's the point
> of the RBL. Save a step before attempting delivery. Non?
>
> -Joe K
1) Some sites get more mail with bad names than they get mail that is
in a BL.
2) What the heck is SENDMAIL doing checking BLs anyway. That is a job
for filters. (See item 1 - I suspect item 1 is mostly the case
except for large ISPs. I get around 200 spam per day, a wee less
now that what's his dork is in prison. If Loren and I handled our
own SendMail we'd see 100:1 bad addressees compared to bad BL,
I suspect.)
3) For situations that fit item 1 some means of filtering out emails
that contain multiple bad addressees is needed that is quick and
friendly. A check against the machine's passwd file with an eval
on all the envelope recipients should be a powerful tool within
SendMail. Maintaining the message ID for known bad addressees and
comparing it with new incoming would also be somewhat powerful, too.
4) I may be all wet and way off base. If so please excuse me.
{o.o}
