From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Nov 26 08:40:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id IAA29662 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:40:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ren.camb.opengroup.org (ren.camb.opengroup.org [130.105.3.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA29658 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:40:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from k@yt.to) Received: (qmail 15215 invoked by uid 12573); 26 Nov 1997 11:38:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19971126063844.25395@yt.to> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 06:38:44 -0500 From: Louis Theran To: chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: major push by spammers? References: <18314.880528819@time.cdrom.com> <199711261523.KAA03242@luomat.peak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88 In-Reply-To: <199711261523.KAA03242@luomat.peak.org>; from Timothy J Luoma on Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 10:23:35AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org some fronter info On Wed, Nov 26, 1997 at 10:23:35AM -0500, Timothy J Luoma wrote: > Author: "Jordan K. Hubbard" > 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 Most spamware packages don't usually implement the retry algorithm. There isn't time when you expect your throwaway dialup account to be nuked when the complaints start coming in. Open relays will do this, however, so I still would use a 5xx over a 4xx if a domain has failed whatever DNS test you are doing on it. > > 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 ;-) Shouldn't you be able to tell the difference between a soft DNS failure and a hard one? It seems like you should be able to do different things depending on whether you got back a definitive answer or you just couldn't reach the nameserver or had it time out on you. ^Louis -- Louis Theran a.k.a. User K -- Carjacker on the Information Superhighway "Off the record. On the QT. And very Hush-Hush."