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

Re: Reject email

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , May 9, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 12 , May 9, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , May 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , May 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 12 , May 10, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              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.