North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: incorrect spam setups cause spool messes on forwarders
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 11:10:16AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > I think he's saying that they were unable to perform the > > validation hence the 450. If the validation was successful, > > they'd return a 200 series code, if it was unsuccessful, they > > would return a 500 series code. > > nice words, but crap. due to needs to spool mail for sites in > countries with very poor connectivity, mail spool time here is > quite long. if verizon and others seem unable to decide in weeks, > why should i pay the penalty? you should likely queue those other countries on a seperate machine dedicated to that purpose. this way one user/host site doesn't unduly cause significant impact to other sites/users. it's interesting you view the interpertation (which at least one other person views as correct) as "crap". this behaviour does seem to fit strict interpretation of the rfc in question. > but, i guess the problem is easily solved with exim config. i have > set it so that if it can not deliver to verizon in say one hour, it > dumps the mail. > > verizon.net * F,1h,5m > > life is simple, except for verizon users i guess. this is the ability of a single host operator to make their own local policy decisions. you've both done what you feel is appropriate. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [email protected] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
|