On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT) ... The potential backscatter is enough to turn me off on the proposal. Now, if you could develop something that didJul 4, 2011 1 of 41View SourceOn Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
Charlie Orford articulated:
> unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit would have solved thisThe "potential backscatter" is enough to turn me off on the proposal.
> problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
Now, if you could develop something that did not involve that problem
then I think it might be given a warmer welcome by the community. Then
again, that is my own 2¢ on the matter.
TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail
TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
... Indeed, and that is not what tempfail_action = permit does. That explicitly verifies no recipients while the primary is down. I have seen no credibleJul 6, 2011 41 of 41View SourceCharlie Orford:
>I know I am starting to sound like a broken record but I reallyIndeed, and that is not what "tempfail_action = permit" does. That
>think a sensible, clean method to run a secondary mx that is capable
>of verifying recipients and accepting mail (rather than deferring)
>with or without the primary being up would be a nice feature to
explicitly verifies no recipients while the primary is down. I have
seen no credible report that your verify cache contains information
about a significant fraction of the recipient population.
>A postfix feature like: address_verify_sequence =That is unnecessary complexity: just use relay_recipient_maps and
be done with it. After all, relay_recipient_maps is the only
available measure against backscatter when the primary is down,
and you already have to maintain it anyway.