Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: master's mail backlog and upgrade time
- From: Florian Weimer <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:44:20 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20051202150256.GA3241@cobalt0.panici.net> (email@example.com's message of "Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:03:07 +0000")
- References: <20051118140737.GV6026@ns.snowman.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20051118174828.GX6026@ns.snowman.net> <20051118181448.GC30385@strugglers.net> <20051118185852.GY6026@ns.snowman.net> <email@example.com> <20051119185625.GC6026@ns.snowman.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20051123140809.GO6026@ns.snowman.net> <email@example.com> <[🔎] 20051202150256.GA3241@cobalt0.panici.net>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:45:58PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> So the best idea is indeed for
>> downstream systems to have policies which are no more strict than
>> upstream systems.
> Would it be possible for master to make call-outs to chiark ?
> would that solve the problem ?
I don't think so. The rejections are mostly content-based, I guess.
And DATA callouts are not really possible.
There are two sane approaches here: block unwanted mail at master
(especially for @debian.org mailbox you don't want to exist), and
accept everything that does get through (only flagging spam, not
I'm not sure if the first option has been implemented in the meantime.
It shouldn't be too to do, now that master is running Exim 4, and once
the desired semantics are clear.