Eric Rescorla wrote:
Accordingly, here we have a situation where we have a rule that
is:
(1) easy for any spammer to bypass
(2) can be shown to have blocked legitimate mail in at least two cases
[Note, you say "defer", but since the issue here is hosts without
records, not DNS failures, defer is just a particularly inconvenient
form of block.]
I think that presents a convincing argument for *at minimum* replacing
the defer with a check in SpamAssassin and, arguably, removing the
check entirely.
I read, and agree with this completely.
That's good, but I don't think it changes the fact that we need a backup relay -Ekr
Agreed also. Addressed in my other outage message, which crossed with this one.
Other comments from anyone regarding rules? Thanks, Eric! Glen