From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 8 17:11:46 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834AF16A42F for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:11:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA83543D5A for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:11:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from flame.pc (aris.bedc.ondsl.gr [62.103.39.226]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k28HBQjS019565 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:11:28 +0200 Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k28HBJhO050528; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:11:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k28HBJXf050526; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:11:19 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:11:19 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Nathan Vidican Message-ID: <20060308171118.GB27158@flame.pc> References: <440F033A.2070400@wmptl.com> <20060308164224.GA88086@flame.pc> <440F0E8D.8060304@wmptl.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <440F0E8D.8060304@wmptl.com> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.376, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.82, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sendmail / alias issue X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:11:46 -0000 On 2006-03-08 12:04, Nathan Vidican wrote: >Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>> So, to the question part... how can I setup an alias to either >>> ignore the bounce-back it gets, (ie to blindly send the bounce >>> itself), or is it possible to specify a different from address on >>> our server's end so when/if the other receiving server doesn't have >>> a valid from address it just drops the reply on our end, like so: >> >> >>I prefer using a different error code that is not a "permanent error". >> >>A "transient error" forces the SMTP relay of the spammers to keep the >>message for some period in their queue and try again later. There's no >>need for you to keep the message in your own mail queue :) > > True, but eventually it will fail from their queue as well and return the > message - the key question there I guess then is if the message returns to > us or to their postmaster then? Their postmaster, AFAIK. > Also, any suggestions as to the 'proper' transient error code? A 451 will > force a retry/wait condition will it not? Well, 4.2.2 and 4.4.5 are also nice: [ http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1893.txt ] X.2.2 Mailbox full The mailbox is full because the user has exceeded a per-mailbox administrative quota or physical capacity. The general semantics implies that the recipient can delete messages to make more space available. This code should be used as a persistent transient failure. X.4.5 Mail system congestion The mail system was unable to deliver the message because the mail system was congested. This is useful only as a persistent transient error.