Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2) 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut? 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send bounces itself)? The only reason it even works like it does currently is because I just mostly copied what Cyrus did.
On 1/18/09, Timo Sirainen wrote:> Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2) > > 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut? > > 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send > bounces itself)? > > The only reason it even works like it does currently is because I just > mostly copied what Cyrus did. >I think doing so would make the system less flexible, and may make unexpected changes to the way a system is currently working. Some may prefer the flexibility of being able to customize the bounce. Recipients may have made rules in their MUAs based on text in current bounces. -- Gary V
Timo Sirainen wrote:> Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2) > > 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut?As long as -e still means EX_NOPERM and a new switch is picked for "send bounce ourselves". (Unless #2 happens.)> 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver > send bounces itself)?As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people. The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction. ~Seth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:> As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own messages to > potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people. The MTA should do > this during the SMTP transaction.Which MTA tries to deliver the mail during the SMTP dialogue? Neither Postfix nor sendmail does, unfortunately. Well, one would open yet another can of worms, if doing so, I guess. Bye, - -- Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSXRG03WSIuGy1ktrAQIgyQf/Y4d/ofYXk4J+NbfEc3I7/ixz+nL0desO /k1lGLP+NrUcEOFFEXArA0HXVt+1qv83fY47MkeZNb6qem0v8s7Ywz09TEzO+jc+ fm0MZIZ+MsR/UnwSEoIrqmnUhatNz7hcHQ0I1RZ/JYWTfY0sVqADvuN6U61GbhE8 4TlRiNQ5S2iIFoWki15++KRZoHKjjJPbBrQxDe8GIC8VnnkbIocMvABZcYxGl2UB 9UXGY/2OLfd3L6Z5a/3E/gZ8KvUjwykb2aHjMcFdY+jLnuWR97lD1FK02dUBczpr ja4Hq1R2X/RwoikUkjeP6O0QBxDLojHxkOCOxlGLmstPKOPC8JRQxQ==vN28 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Timo Sirainen wrote:> Is there any reason not to make (for v1.2) > > 1) deliver -e behavior the defaut? > > 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver send > bounces itself)?I have no objections again 1) and 2). But as others said, to remove 2) removes flexibility, e.g. to localize bounce messages :) And you would need to rewrite lots of advices and documentation. I would defer 1) til v2.0 and add a mandatory option for the operation mode, e.g. if none is specified, deliver could comlpain with 'missing operation mode, did you forgot to specify "--operation-mode bounce-self"?' or something like that. Bye, - -- Steffen Kaiser -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBSXRIn3WSIuGy1ktrAQKbugf/cCYrWEOYTrLuBi3njWowrJCNAEa9A9Ut awwUm1B+NmfazJttabt0acW12MDmI85G/ZeOrZE/eUEBHmwBVzFoFcrukDp/Za0t bWWBeDkNZtN+hj5g5M/aTR2A3ycrMg1DLSm78WM9rmGh1ubGNFOigSXJ7VUXbgjo UcqWt2PjoTWUGJAFZE8PgHxX25EFt5cQkr7U7PoXUS/d8BqTzcI1/+SnscYH5XcJ cHMHP8Ere8+SWZIpedsaxnQuJ+9FtcsXHnUmQ7VRnMnj0aK47LOV4KYjell2fY2z lUDuo/r9lKLCxUQQKqjMVgjZV6dt9O7Sk+E9xqO64noeSh4azZIF8w==gn7B -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 1/18/2009 2:58 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:> 2) not even provide the option for the current default (have deliver > send bounces itself)?I assume you mean respond with an smtp-reject? My understanding of 'bounces' is they should only ever be generated by the SENDERS MTA? -- Best regards, Charles
You message was rejected by... no thank you, I do not want ever to see this: On M 19 Jan, 2009, at 10:24 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own >> messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent >> people. The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction. > > Which MTA tries to deliver the mail during the SMTP dialogue? > Neither Postfix nor sendmail does, unfortunately. Well, one would > open yet another can of worms, if doing so, I guess.he meant SMTP time reject, not bounces or NDR or whatever. Giuliano
Steffen Kaiser schrieb:> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: > >> As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own >> messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people. >> The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction. > > Which MTA tries to deliver the mail during the SMTP dialogue? > Neither Postfix nor sendmail does, unfortunately. Well, one would open > yet another can of worms, if doing so, I guess. > > Bye, > > -- Steffen KaiserDepends what kind of bounce you mean i.e quota full bounce can be avoided by postfix with vda patch ( which isnt official supported by postfix hackers ) but you cant use an additional lda then ( so you may loose filter stuff ) but in fact if you look in your logs daily and have good Anitvirus and Antispam stuff integrated and setuped ,backscatters by lda are very rare, and mostly have easy solutions, like expand quota, deleting mailboxes etc so its like others said avoid to bounce to spam mails is the most stuff, i.e clamav-milter helps a lot killing worms etc on smtp income level, if sanesecurity is up again this will work again for known spam -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
Robert Schetterer wrote:> Steffen Kaiser schrieb: >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>> As a mail admin, I never want to see deliver generating its own >>> messages to potentially forged addresses and spamming innocent people. >>> The MTA should do this during the SMTP transaction. >> Which MTA tries to deliver the mail during the SMTP dialogue? >> Neither Postfix nor sendmail does, unfortunately. Well, one would open >> yet another can of worms, if doing so, I guess. >> >> Bye, >> >> -- Steffen Kaiser > > Depends what kind of bounce you mean > i.e quota full bounce > can be avoided by postfix with vda patch > ( which isnt official supported by postfix hackers ) > but you cant use an additional lda then ( so you may loose filter stuff ) > but in fact if you look in your logs daily > and have good Anitvirus and Antispam stuff integrated > and setuped > ,backscatters by lda are very rare, and mostly have easy > solutions, like expand quota, deleting mailboxes etc > so its like others said avoid to bounce to spam mails > is the most stuff, i.e clamav-milter helps a lot killing > worms etc on smtp income level, if sanesecurity is up again > this will work again for known spamhttp://vda.sourceforge.net/ ~Seth