Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 10:23:35 -0500 From: Timothy J Luoma <luomat@peak.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: major push by spammers? Message-ID: <199711261523.KAA03242@luomat.peak.org> In-Reply-To: <18314.880528819@time.cdrom.com> References: <18314.880528819@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Author: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Original-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 23:20:19 -0800 Message-ID: <18314.880528819@time.cdrom.com> > Hmmm. What would be a better code if one simply wished to toss it away? 451 is a temp error.... 551 is a permanent one > And I wonder if running a caching named on mail.freebsd.org wouldn't > perhaps be a good idea, if only to avoid the scenario of temporary DNS > outtages. Would it even help? I don't think so. If it is cached than it would not fail. If it was not cached and there was a temporary DNS outtage at your nameservers, it would bounce. Sending a 500-level permanant bounce is not really a good idea in general... You'd be surprised how often there are temp DNS timeouts.... too man damn people using the Internet these days ;-) However, that said, sending a 400-level sets you up for some bad configurations of other systems which will retry every 5 minutes for 5 days before turning a temp failure into a permanent one... Enough of those could be a real drain. TjL ps -- I have seen more spams in the last week than in the last 3 months.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711261523.KAA03242>