Thanks for the replies! Heh yeah, I got my first spam a few hours after I created it. I guess I'll keep the catch-all around for a week and then get rid of it.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Jorey Bump <l...@joreybump.com> wrote: > Andi Raicu wrote, at 02/20/2009 04:47 AM: > > > I don't want to be in the situation where I didn't create an account to > > the new server and emails that were supposed to be recieved are now, > > well, kind of lost; so I need a catch-all email. > > Anyone who decides to distribute an email address without ensuring it > works deserves to lose mail. You need to focus on a policy for > provisioning new email addresses and a system to support it. If you try > to use catch-alls for this perceived need, you will certainly fail. > > > But there is a problem! If I do that, then ANY email sent to company.com > > <http://company.com>, even though it has a valid user in > > virtual_mailbox_maps, will go to lostnfo...@company.com > > <mailto:lostnfo...@company.com>! > > Whatever you do, do you really want to be responsible for searching > through the lostnfound account because some pinhead *thinks* it *might* > contain an important message to some ambiguous nonexistent address? Do > you really want to burden someone else with this task? Catch-alls are > almost always filled to the brim with spam, viruses and phishing > exploits. Do you want to risk any of these being forwarded by mistake? > Catch-alls are also a notorious black hole for messages with typos in > the recipient address, so you'll have to regularly check the account for > those. It's far better for the message to be rejected so the sender is > aware of the typo and has an opportunity to resend the message correctly. > > Anything you do to try to make this work will most likely result in an > unmaintainable mess. Demand that your users only use real addresses that > have been properly assigned to them. > > > > >
