Am 28.01.2012 07:00, schrieb Bill Cole: >> to say it not polite: it is idiotic to remove "User unknown" > > That's debatable. However, it is explicitly allowed by RFC5321 and its > ancestors.
not all things which are allowed are smart the RFC allows you even a open-relay so should we help anybody setup one? it is only debatable because you have seen not enough of the real world and thinking only the RFC is saving your life and even if you make a big mistake it is OK as long it is in the RFC most spam-filters are not there but reality > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.2 > >> as example we are doing fully automated bounce-managment based on >> /var/log/maillog and remove adresses from ALL tables of all customers >> which contains "newsletter" in the table-name and having a field "email" > > If you relied on the text in that way in an SMTP client > it would violate a "MUST" statement in RFC5321. wtf - who said that i rely only on the text? i rely on many parameters to remove an address and the text is one of many there are things you do not understand and probably never will like "make 100% sure and not only by RFC" realize that i am not a SMTP-client i am not interested to remove a 5xx statuscode bounce from a customers table if the text says "mailbox full" and yes this is a 5xx error but not permanently FOREVER > FWIW, I believe I've used the word "idiotic" in fighting against the creation > of > such ill-conceived tools. It is unfortunate that you did not take the advice > of > the relevant RFC's before deploying and becoming reliant on such an > intrinsically > broken tool that is destined for a permanent state of needing maintenance. this script works since 5 years and yes i am grepping once each month manually through the maillog and compare how good it works and it does his job to 99.9% while add a new text is quite simple -> enter it in a textfield of a webinterface to put it in the sql-table all relay-servers are using > In short: in reply to RCPT, '550' should be treated as "User Unknown" unless > it is followed by a standard enhanced status code other than '5.1.1' > (which should be considered as an unequivocal and authoritative statement > that the addressed mailbox is nonexistent.) and then came the real world! and no my development is not abstract, in such cases it is using the real world as base how to act, you would not realize that the next line si a non-existent address, i did and removed it postfix/smtp[16702]: A94FA601: to=<**@chello.at>, relay=mx0.upcmail.net[213.46.255.200]:25, conn_use=47, delay=4847, delays=4788/59/0.01/0.06, dsn=5.1.1, status=bounced (host mx0.upcmail.net[213.46.255.200] said: 550 5.1.1 <**@chello.at> unknown recipient rejected (in reply to RCPT TO command))
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
