atom feed12 messages in net.sourceforge.lists.courier-usersRe: [courier-users] validating addres...
FromSent OnAttachments
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 20, 2010 2:26 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 20, 2010 4:04 am 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 20, 2010 4:52 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 20, 2010 3:03 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 26, 2010 2:38 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 26, 2010 4:01 am 
Gordon MessmerMay 26, 2010 8:32 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 28, 2010 6:31 am 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 28, 2010 7:18 am 
Sam VarshavchikMay 28, 2010 3:08 pm 
Gordon MessmerMay 28, 2010 4:11 pm 
Matus UHLAR - fantomasMay 31, 2010 8:24 am 
Subject:Re: [courier-users] validating addresses at SMTP time.
From:Matus UHLAR - fantomas (uhl@fantomas.sk)
Date:May 31, 2010 8:24:46 am
List:net.sourceforge.lists.courier-users

On 26.05.10 07:01, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

All of this incurs non-trivial per message overhead. Issuing a DNS query, and/or querying the local account database, is not free, and the penalty now applies to every message. A judgement call needs to be made whether the additional overhead is justified by the value added.

Matus UHLAR - fantomas writes:

I'm aware of all of this. However all (except sender address verification) the overhead will still happen, but later in delivery chain, in which case

On 28.05.10 18:08, Sam Varshavchik wrote:

A second time. Twice as much overhead, now.

since there's e.g. more spam than ham, I still find many checks at SMTP time as win.

As the old saying goes: build an idiot-proof process, and nature will evolve a better idiot.

Do you mean we shouldn't build idiot-proof processes because of this?

A completely idiot-proof solution is often impossible. Nearly all the time this is reduced to a judgement call, whether the extra bang for the buck is worth the additional penalty.

well, I'm guessing it is worth it. Seems you are guessing the oposite... but it's hard to judge without trying it.

I hope that the courieresmtpd code is easy enough to patch for this functionality...