On 03/15/2010 10:49 PM, Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:41:02PM +0100, Erik Logtenberg wrote: > >> However the DEFER_IF_REJECT flag makes _all_ mail that would normally be >> rejected (quite much) be deferred, which imho is quite a sacrifice to >> make. (if I understand correctly) > > No, this would apply only to failed DNSWL lookups.
Ah okay, you mean the case where the whitelist is actually available, but a single lookup happens to fail, which they sometimes do. Now I understand; and yes I agree that raising the DEFER_IF_REJECT flag would be the best/strictest way to handle such an event. However in the case where the whitelist is (completely) unavailable for some period of time, I still think that my suggestion applies, don't you agree?
