Re: 2.99.56pre4 config help

[Eugene Crosser <crosser@rol.ru>]

On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 12:56, Ambrose Li wrote:

> 1. My ZMailer 2.99.56pre4 is not checking for existence of users.
>    HELO pattern only has R (because ftve needs interactive router
>    subsystem and I disabled that), but ROUTEUSER_IN_ABNORMAL_UNIX
>    is empty.

Speaking of which - a random thought.  I understand that what I am
talking about probably cannot be implemented, but still.  With the
recent rise of spam, two problems surfaced:

1. Spam attacks with random local names.  Because local name check is
asynchronous, this generates hoards of non-delivery reports that crowd
the queue and consume resources (primarily disk I/O).

2. "Bounce spamming".  Messages sent to nonexisting local users with
different existing envelope froms.  Those from addresses get
non-delivery reports containing attached original message from our
server, and are unhappy.

So, while the idea of separating smtp reception from routing seems
attractive, it probably would be much better to do routing in the course
of SMTP session, and report failures synchronously.  This would require
less resources from the local server and generate less traffic on the
Net.  Additional benefit of combining smtpserver and router into one
entity would be that smtp policy could be processed by router that
posesses of better tools for that.

It just came to me that such reorganization is not as unrealistic as it
seems: smtpserver and router could still be separate processes, talking
over unix domain socket or something; at the end of session smtpserver
could pass the file to the router much the same way as it currently does
for contentfilter.  Router could either pass the message to the
scheduler queue and report success to the smtpserver, or erase the file
and report failure.

Am I mad or what?

Eugene

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe zmailer" in
the body of a message to majordomo@nic.funet.fi