removing catch-all, blackhole functionality

[empowering]

so what would you guys want the /etc/virtual/domain.com/aliases file to look like when it's off?

1) without the * at all
2) with *: :blackhole: (no bounces are sent)
3) with *: :fail: (denies the email right away)

John

If the Email address doesn't exist it should fail, no blackhole. Especially if we start using a centralized anti-spam server for incoming SMTP. Using postfix would do a SMTP Verify against a DA's exim to determine if the Email account is valid before forwarding it to the DA server. If the Email doesn't exist it gets rejected by the anti-spam server. IMHO blackholes and catch all feature should be an option to allow per account.

 

[nobaloney]

I found putting catch-all email to "ignore" has reduced my spam by 90%.

And setting it to fail would do even better.

Why? Because ignore must actually take time to accept the data before throwing it away, while fail refuses the email before it even gets to the data stage.

Jeff

 

[jaapvstr]

Doesn't setting it to fail allows for email scans?

As in:

if fails:
Hey, this account fails, so it doesn't exist
..scan on..
Hey, this account does not fail, it gets delivered

???

 

[DirectAdmin Support]

yes, but if exim accepts everything, then the scanner would assume that all accounts are valid (and remember this list), so you'd get spam to each account he tested instead of just one per account. I'd sooner get 1 spam per valid account (eg, 10 copies) instead of spam to an entire random list of usernames that don't exist, which will just increase the server load the next time he sends his batch. An email server has to be able to check if an account is valid.. else it wouldn't know if the mail arrived or not so as to try again later, or give up now. However, as a server admin, you are free to use whatever tactict you feel works best for you. There are many different types of spammers, and many different way you could deal with each one. So in the end, it's up to you how you want to do it.

John

 

[jaapvstr]

I'd like to have them burned on a great pile of wood

But i guess thats just not possible to implement in directadmin.

 

[pucky]

DA we need this feature!!!!!!!

On our stock DA reseller servers we are getting constant dictionary attacks for users who enable it.

You say what? Dictonary attacks dont care whether a user has enabled catch-all or not. Dictonary attacks happen regardless and have nothing to do with this. Its another thing if the user has catch-all on then they will get spammed up the kerhilk.

 

[smtalk]

+1 for fail

 

[xemaps]

You say what? Dictonary attacks dont care whether a user has enabled catch-all or not. Dictonary attacks happen regardless and have nothing to do with this. Its another thing if the user has catch-all on then they will get spammed up the kerhilk.

sure this is another thing
it doesn't cost much to stop it at smtp time.


**
catchall is bad and should never been used.

 

[nobaloney]

fail is better than drop because drop actually accepts the entire message and then throws it away (to /dev/null). That takes quite a bit more server resources than telling the connecting server to go away and dropping the connection.

Jeff