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

Re: Reject email

Expand Messages
  • Stan Hoeppner
    Normally I d avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the list. However you made some invalid points that need to be corrected for those who may
    Message 1 of 12 , May 9, 2013
      Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply clutters the
      list. However you made some invalid points that need to be corrected
      for those who may browse the archives in the future.

      On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:

      > if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming
      > mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record
      > and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail

      When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback
      to A? While RFC may require it, and some used it in the 70s and 80s, no
      receivers rely on fallback to A in 2013. Anyone versed sufficiently in
      SMTP to know of the existence of fallback to A isn't going to rely on
      it. They'll have proper MX records.

      > another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed
      > hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention
      > of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means
      >
      > a) no MX record for the domain
      > b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname
      >
      > reject b) would be fine

      Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time.

      > reject a) would be stupid

      If generic and not selective then yes, but not because of fallback to A.
      The real problem here is legitimate send-only domains, such as some
      mailing lists, bulk mail campaigns, emergency alert and other
      notification systems, etc.

      --
      Stan
    • Reindl Harald
      ... keep this bullshit for you ... NOT SO LONG AGO a few years ago i was so naive and stupid to implement a DNS check in the verify-function of my
      Message 2 of 12 , May 9, 2013
        Am 09.05.2013 16:44, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
        > Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply
        > clutters the list

        keep this bullshit for you

        > On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
        >
        >> if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming
        >> mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record
        >> and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail
        >
        > When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback
        > to A? While RFC may require it

        NOT SO LONG AGO

        a few years ago i was so naive and stupid to implement
        a DNS check in the verify-function of my php-framework
        to prevent import / subscribe to newsletter lists with
        undeliverable domains

        i had it to learn the hard way that RFC's are
        not only for fun

        >> another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed
        >> hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention
        >> of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means
        >>
        >> a) no MX record for the domain
        >> b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname
        >>
        >> reject b) would be fine
        >
        > Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time

        that's their problem
        after fixing this the next mails would go through

        nobody expect that if he make mistakes in his DNS configs and is too
        lazy to verify what he configured that others configure their servers
        to help him

        with this attitude you would needto reject all with 4xx because
        someone could have make a mistake - this is a bad attitude in
        context of e-mail
      • Stan Hoeppner
        ... Nice etiquette... ... You missed the point entirely. I think this is because you are predisposed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you, even when
        Message 3 of 12 , May 9, 2013
          On 5/9/2013 9:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
          >
          > Am 09.05.2013 16:44, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
          >> Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply
          >> clutters the list
          >
          > keep this bullshit for you

          Nice etiquette...

          >> On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
          >>
          >>> if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming
          >>> mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record
          >>> and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail
          >>
          >> When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback
          >> to A? While RFC may require it
          >
          > NOT SO LONG AGO
          >
          > a few years ago i was so naive and stupid to implement
          > a DNS check in the verify-function of my php-framework
          > to prevent import / subscribe to newsletter lists with
          > undeliverable domains
          >
          > i had it to learn the hard way that RFC's are
          > not only for fun

          You missed the point entirely. I think this is because you are
          predisposed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you, even when they
          are correct and you are incorrect. Hence the preface in my previous reply.

          >>> another story is if there is a MX-Record but the listed
          >>> hostname does not resolve and at least for me the intention
          >>> of "if the MX does not exist" is not clear enough if it means
          >>>
          >>> a) no MX record for the domain
          >>> b) a MX record with a non-resloving hostname
          >>>
          >>> reject b) would be fine
          >>
          >> Only if the response is 4xx. People fat finger records all the time
          >
          > that's their problem
          > after fixing this the next mails would go through
          >
          > nobody expect that if he make mistakes in his DNS configs and is too
          > lazy to verify what he configured that others configure their servers
          > to help him

          Again you miss the point. The reason for a 4xx here is so the mail gets
          queued and can simply be flushed after the DNS or other error is
          corrected. Thus the message isn't needlessly returned to the sender.
          Most of such errors are found and corrected pretty quickly. Using a 4xx
          in this case keeps things more transparent to users, whether mine,
          yours, or the guy at the remote SMTP site.

          > with this attitude you would needto reject all with 4xx because
          > someone could have make a mistake - this is a bad attitude in
          > context of e-mail

          No, Reindl, this is called courtesy to fellow network operators. The
          only bad attitude here is yours. You display it both here and on the
          Dovecot list regularly. Being brash and arrogant is one thing. Most
          people dislike that but tolerate it. But the constant cursing and
          berating anyone who disagrees with you crosses the line.

          Frankly I'm surprised that Wietse and Victor have let you get away with
          this behavior for so long. I guess they're leaving it up to members to
          add you to local kill files...

          --
          Stan
        • Reindl Harald
          ... and what was your quoted line clown ? ... but your problem is that you are not correct
          Message 4 of 12 , May 10, 2013
            Am 10.05.2013 08:26, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
            > On 5/9/2013 9:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
            >>
            >> Am 09.05.2013 16:44, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
            >>> Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply
            >>> clutters the list
            >>
            >> keep this bullshit for you
            >
            > Nice etiquette...

            and what was your quoted line clown ?

            >>> On 5/9/2013 7:26 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
            >>>
            >>>> if you have a A-record for "example.com" and you incoming
            >>>> mail-server is on this IP you do not need any MX record
            >>>> and postfix will happily use the A-record to deliver mail
            >>>
            >>> When did you last come across a domain configured strictly for fallback
            >>> to A? While RFC may require it
            >>
            >> NOT SO LONG AGO
            >>
            >> a few years ago i was so naive and stupid to implement
            >> a DNS check in the verify-function of my php-framework
            >> to prevent import / subscribe to newsletter lists with
            >> undeliverable domains
            >>
            >> i had it to learn the hard way that RFC's are
            >> not only for fun
            >
            > You missed the point entirely. I think this is because you are
            > predisposed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you, even when they
            > are correct and you are incorrect. Hence the preface in my previous reply

            but your problem is that you are not correct
          • Reindl Harald
            ... most of these errors are corrected after someone complaints and with a 4xx it takes up to 5 days until this happens a wrong configuration is a wrong
            Message 5 of 12 , May 10, 2013
              Am 10.05.2013 08:26, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
              >> nobody expect that if he make mistakes in his DNS configs and is too
              >> lazy to verify what he configured that others configure their servers
              >> to help him
              >
              > Again you miss the point. The reason for a 4xx here is so the mail gets
              > queued and can simply be flushed after the DNS or other error is
              > corrected. Thus the message isn't needlessly returned to the sender.
              > Most of such errors are found and corrected pretty quickly. Using a 4xx
              > in this case keeps things more transparent to users, whether mine,
              > yours, or the guy at the remote SMTP site.

              most of these errors are corrected after someone complaints and with
              a 4xx it takes up to 5 days until this happens

              a wrong configuration is a wrong configuration
              period

              >> with this attitude you would needto reject all with 4xx because
              >> someone could have make a mistake - this is a bad attitude in
              >> context of e-mail
              >
              > No, Reindl, this is called courtesy to fellow network operators. The
              > only bad attitude here is yours. You display it both here and on the
              > Dovecot list regularly. Being brash and arrogant is one thing. Most
              > people dislike that but tolerate it. But the constant cursing and
              > berating anyone who disagrees with you crosses the line.

              diagree is one thing but disagree on clear technical facts is another

              > Frankly I'm surprised that Wietse and Victor have let you get away with
              > this behavior for so long. I guess they're leaving it up to members to
              > add you to local kill files...

              frankly i am surprised that you not attack Wietse sometimes after
              he rferes to some documentation flowed by "to unsubscribe....."
            • Wietse Venema
              ... OK. A large portion of list traffic is now from Reindl giving rude responses to new and old members of this list. Having an active list member is good, but
              Message 6 of 12 , May 10, 2013
                Reindl Harald:
                > Am 10.05.2013 08:26, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
                > > On 5/9/2013 9:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
                > >>
                > >> Am 09.05.2013 16:44, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
                > >>> Normally I'd avoid arguing with your Reindl as it simply
                > >>> clutters the list
                > >>
                > >> keep this bullshit for you
                > >
                > > Nice etiquette...
                >
                > and what was your quoted line clown ?

                OK. A large portion of list traffic is now from Reindl giving rude
                responses to new and old members of this list.

                Having an active list member is good, but his manners are not.

                I unsubscribe Reindl Harald, and I encourage all Postfix list
                moderators to do the same in the case that he returns.

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