Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Better to do 550 instead of 450 for these?

Expand Messages
  • Roger B.A. Klorese
    ... How is NXDOMAIN any more a hard failure? An authoritative server could be temporarily misconfigured...
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Victor Duchovni wrote:
      > Postfix never returns 5XX for temporary lookup problems, even when it
      > returns 5XX for NXDOMAIN and other hard failures.


      How is NXDOMAIN any more a "hard" failure? An authoritative server
      could be temporarily misconfigured...
    • Roger B.A. Klorese
      ... To me, the world is not me vs. them -- the goal is getting mail through, not scolding about other people s configurations.
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Len Conrad wrote:
        > ain't my responsibility to mind-read, guess, and hedge that their
        > server is misconfigged. The sooner THEY pay for THEIR problems, the
        > better off we all are.


        To me, the world is not "me vs. them" -- the goal is getting mail
        through, not scolding about other people's configurations.
      • Arnt Gulbrandsen
        ... In that case, the name server tells you I am authoritative and I know there is no such domain . It s not telling you there never was , it s not telling
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
          > Victor Duchovni wrote:
          >> Postfix never returns 5XX for temporary lookup problems, even when it
          >> returns 5XX for NXDOMAIN and other hard failures.
          >
          > How is NXDOMAIN any more a "hard" failure? An authoritative server
          > could be temporarily misconfigured...

          In that case, the name server tells you "I am authoritative and I know
          there is no such domain". It's not telling you "there never was", it's
          not telling you "there never will be", but what it is saying is
          qualitatively different from "I can't resolve that domain right now",
          and so deserves different treatment.

          Arnt
        • mouss
          ... so what? when they fix their system, then they ll post their mail! Systems should be optimized for the common case, not for rare cases. I prefer to get a
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Roger B.A. Klorese a écrit :
            > Victor Duchovni wrote:
            >
            >> Postfix never returns 5XX for temporary lookup problems, even when it
            >> returns 5XX for NXDOMAIN and other hard failures.
            >
            >
            >
            > How is NXDOMAIN any more a "hard" failure? An authoritative server
            > could be temporarily misconfigured...
            >
            >

            so what? when they fix their system, then they'll post their mail!
            Systems should be optimized for the common case, not for rare cases.

            I prefer to get a bounce telling me that my DNS server is misconfigured
            than wait 4 days and get bounces for all the messages that my system
            sent during that period of time.

            If you don't like DNS failures, then don't base your mail decisions on
            that. DNS isn't safe. If you base your smtp setup on it, then you have
            the common denominator.
          • Len Conrad
            ... It s not 1995, or 2000. If mail admins won t/can t setup to look like part of the solution by now, then they pay whatever it costs to be part of the
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              >To me, the world is not "me vs. them" -- the goal is getting mail
              >through, not scolding about other people's configurations.

              It's not 1995, or 2000.
              If mail admins won't/can't setup to look like part of the solution by
              now, then they pay whatever it costs to be part of the problem.

              Len



              _____________________________________________________________________
              http://IMGate.MEIway.com : free anti-spam gateway, runs on 1000's of sites
            • Roger B.A. Klorese
              ... It doesn t matter if it s 1995, 2000, 2005, or 2037 -- when stopping mail becomes more important than delivering mail, there s no point in there being
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Len Conrad wrote:
                > It's not 1995, or 2000.

                It doesn't matter if it's 1995, 2000, 2005, or 2037 -- when stopping
                mail becomes more important than delivering mail, there's no point in
                there being mail.
              • Victor Duchovni
                ... This is getting seriously off-topic. Setting the DNS-based reject codes to 5XX is recommended as soon as one is confortable that the settings are correct.
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:03:39PM -0800, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:

                  > Len Conrad wrote:
                  > >It's not 1995, or 2000.
                  >
                  > It doesn't matter if it's 1995, 2000, 2005, or 2037 -- when stopping
                  > mail becomes more important than delivering mail, there's no point in
                  > there being mail.
                  >

                  This is getting seriously off-topic. Setting the DNS-based reject codes
                  to 5XX is recommended as soon as one is confortable that the settings
                  are correct. Persistent 4XX rejects that *don't* represent temporary
                  conditions are worse for the sender.

                  So either use "reject_unknown_sender_domain", ... with 5XX codes after
                  brief testing with 4XX codes (or soft_bounce=yes), or don't use them
                  at all.

                  Let's not drift into rec.talk.* territory. No off-topic followups please.

                  --
                  Viktor.

                  Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
                  Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

                  To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
                  http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
                  <mailto:majordomo@...?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

                  If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
                  send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
                  "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.