Re: Problem sending to Alioth lists?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:48:31AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Out of curiousity, if this is such a good thing why are Alioth and
> SourceForge the only two services (of the dozens of mailing lists from
> half dozen or more services) which use this setup? Also, why is the
> error message returned by the mail server not more clear?
Due to it being more widely supported in MTAs and server load issues
you'll often see a much weaker variant which only does sender address
verification using DNS (checking that there is a resolvable MX or A
record for the domain but not verifying that it can be used). From what
you're saying you'll have been passing the weaker variants. The general
idea with this class of checks is that if the sender does not care if
the message is delivered (since they haven't provided a return address
that can accept bounces they won't be informed of any errors) then the
receiver may as well save the effort of trying the delivery.
As with other anti-spam measures you will also see this deployed in
conjunction with other measures so the individual checks aren't directly
visible themselves: for example, the trigger levels for spam filtering
or the timeouts used in greylisting could be adjusted based on the
deliverabiliy of the sender.
> > sender_canonical_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/canonical
> No offense, but that is completely non-scalable. That only works for a
> small number of users which does not change frequently. Anyhow, thanks
> to 'Dato, I seem to have been able to convince mutt to play nicer with
> your mail server.
The usual approach is to ensure that your system generates a valid
envelope sender by default. For systems that host users with many
domains the default is normally chosen to be the underlying account on
the hosting system.
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."