Re: Mail not being received from

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 03:21:08PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 18:48 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 04:32:25PM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > > cc'ing gnome-infrastructure: that's the right mailing list for this
> > > topic.
> > 
> > > Le mardi 28 septembre 2010, à 10:17 -0400, Paul Smith a écrit :
> > > > This shows that the MTA is misconfigured and not
> > > > behaving properly.
> > 
> > 'Not behaving properly' is your interpretation.
> Not just my interpretation.  As David pointed out the very postfix
> document you linked to in the bug stated that the behavior of
> in this respect is a mis-configuration:
> >         Unfortunately, sender address verification cannot simply be
> >         turned on for all email - you are likely to lose legitimate
> >         mail from mis-configured systems.

I know that bit, I just disagree with the conclusion that it is a
misconfiguration. The sender address is what it should be, you just
cannot send email to it.

> > IMO relying on the sender address to exist is done at your own discretion.
> Not _MY_ discretion; the mail never arrives at my mail client so there's
> no way I can make that decision.  This is at the discretion of my (and
> David's, and others') ISP who are the ones who configure the MTA to use
> sender address validation, in order to reduce/avoid spam.

And as a result legitimate email is lost. Which is warned about in the
sender verification documentation. It just seems like intentional
decision to me. Knowingly making such a decision just doesn't feel like
the blame is fully on me.

Still, I'm not happy with this, it is just that I didn't know (up to now
it seems) of a sane way to change it, which I already pointed out in
that bug or another one (I didn't reread).

> > If you want to move it forward, explain how I can easily configure it
> > exactly as I described in the bug. Meaning: low maintenance. I know of
> > one possibility, I think that is is really ugly and I am not willing to
> > do that as it'll likely break often.
> I subscribed to the postfix-users mailing list and asked them and they
> responded:

I doesn't do what I intended (discard instead of reject). Maybe it'll
still work. Anyway, already replied in the bug.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]