On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 11:31:34AM +0200, Andrzej Kukula wrote:
> So the owner of the company sent an explanation and apologies to
> postmasters and roots, but almost all of them bounced. This is
> unusual.
This is admittedly a site-dependent thing, but I'd be surprised if there
were many admins who'd voluntarily leave themselves open to a known spam
source while closing it off for their users.
> My suggestion is: when you configure MTA to not accept e-mail from a
> source, it should allow that source to send mail to at least root,
> postmaster and hostmaster, or some other configurable accounts.
Leave /well-known/ accounts open to more spam? Why?
And why should I lower shields on the basis of a potentially insincere
email apology from a potentially incompetent admin to whom I haven't
spoken a single word? My users would call me stupid, and rightly so.
I think it's reasonable to expect any offending admin to:
[a] find out my contact number by whatever means (suggesting competence)
[b] call me personally to apologize and explain (suggesting sincerity)
[c] suffer through whatever interrogation methods I choose to ascertain
whether I should trust him/her and lower shields (confirming
competence and sincerity)
--
Adrian Ho Tinker, Drifter, Fixer, Bum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archived @: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=qmail>
Useful URLs: <http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html> <http://www.qmail.org>
<http://www.lifewithqmail.org/> <http://qmail.faqts.com/>
