
10-15-2006, 08:16 PM
|
|
Web Hosting Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 452
|
|
:fail: vs :fail: no such address here
:fail: vs :fail: no such address here
What is the major difference. In particualr to the system resources that gets used and implications to deal with spammers. TIA!
|

10-15-2006, 08:31 PM
|
|
Community Guide
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,247
|
|
As far as I know they both do exactly the same thing. The second one simply (also) returns the message "no such address here" back to the originating SMTP server.
Frank
__________________
█ Umbra Hosting
█ cPanel | Softaculous | CloudLinux | R1Soft | Ksplice
█ Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, Colocation
█ UmbraHosting.com
|

10-15-2006, 08:55 PM
|
|
Web Hosting Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 452
|
|
So if there is a a physical bonce message, would that not cause more "usage" on the server.
With resources aside, most spammers are probably using some system to do their spamming and a bounce message would not bother them.
Which one do others use? with or without the message?
Come to think of it, would using :backhole: log all activity for future investigating?
|

10-15-2006, 09:20 PM
|
|
Community Guide
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,247
|
|
:fail: is not a bounce. I'm not a SMTP expert, but :fail: causes the mail to be rejected before your server actually accepts it. You really don't want to use :blackhole". :blackhole" accepts the message, runs it through all your spam/av filtering, then dumps it. Why would anyone want to do all that processing?
Frank
__________________
█ Umbra Hosting
█ cPanel | Softaculous | CloudLinux | R1Soft | Ksplice
█ Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, Colocation
█ UmbraHosting.com
|

10-16-2006, 04:43 PM
|
|
Web Hosting Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 452
|
|
So what is the difference bewteen:
:fail:
:fail: no such address here
|

10-16-2006, 04:56 PM
|
|
WHT Addict
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
|
|
I believe ffeingol gave an exhaustive answer to your question:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ffeingol
As far as I know they both do exactly the same thing. The second one simply (also) returns the message "no such address here" back to the originating SMTP server.
|
|

10-16-2006, 05:30 PM
|
|
Web Hosting Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 452
|
|
My bad, how did I miss that one? Sorry about that.
So that leads to my next question, which one should I use considering there is lots of spammers using our domain in the "reply to" field?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
|

10-16-2006, 05:40 PM
|
|
WHT Addict
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 126
|
|
That's quite a different issue. You should add an SPF record to your domain's DNS zone in order to cut down on email spoofing: http://www.openspf.org/
|

10-16-2006, 05:50 PM
|
|
Web Hosting Evangelist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 452
|
|
H Harmolodic,
Thanks for the tip. Our VPS host did that for us already. Just wondering if there is anything that we can do to decrease spam. We see a list of emails in the queue and it was not sent out by us! Darn spammers.
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
| Postbit Selector |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Login: |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
|
|
| Web Hosting News: |
|
|
|