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

Re: unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit

Expand Messages
  • Wietse Venema
    ... The current state does not have that problem. With unverified_recipient_tempfail_action=defer_if_permit or defer, Postfix will pass mail for recipients
    Message 1 of 41 , Jul 4 6:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Jerry:
      > On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 04:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
      > Charlie Orford articulated:
      >
      > > unverified_recipient_tempfail_action = permit? would have solved this
      > > problem with the small penalty of a brief period of potential
      > > backscatter.
      >
      > The "potential backscatter" is enough to turn me off on the proposal.
      > 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.

      The current state does not have that problem.

      With unverified_recipient_tempfail_action=defer_if_permit or defer,
      Postfix will pass mail for recipients that were cached less than
      31 days ago. In addition, Postfix attempts to refresh recipients
      after 7 days so that active recipients never expire.

      If a recipient is not cached, then a tempfail_action of permit
      results in backscatter which is not safe. If this is a concern,
      increase the address_verify_positive_expire_time so that Postfix
      never expires a recipient. If a recipient never receives email,
      then it is not a problem if mail is delayed by a few hours.

      Wietse
    • Wietse Venema
      ... Indeed, and that is not what tempfail_action = permit does. That explicitly verifies no recipients while the primary is down. I have seen no credible
      Message 41 of 41 , Jul 6 5:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Charlie Orford:
        >I know I am starting to sound like a broken record but I really
        >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
        >have.

        Indeed, and that is not what "tempfail_action = permit" does. That
        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 =
        >address_verification_polling, relay_recipient_maps

        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.

        Wietse
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.