Re: [fetchmail] Double bounce (Was: unexpected behaviour with undeliverable mail)
Matthias Andree <ma <at> dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>
2002-09-01 13:11:24 GMT
Sunil Shetye <shetye <at> bombay.retortsoft.com> writes:
> I presume, this means that 550 should be added in the single drop case
> only. This means that the default antispam list should be different
> for multidrop and single drop cases.
The safe default would be to leave the antispam list empty.
> I now realise that the reason for the missing bounces was the
> inclusion of 550 in antispam by default!
Oh hum. Even though the machine I reported this against, ludwig.ping.de,
has been off-line for many months now, I happen to have the original
configuration here, because it was a well-documented one. And indeed, it
antispam 571 554 501 # 550 nicht!
for the multidrop case ("nicht" is German for "not").
> On tracing, it shows that for each invalid recipient, open_smtp_sink()
> calls handle_smtp_report() which can call send_bouncemail(). Also, at
> the end, if there are any invalid recipients, send_bouncemail() is
> called with all invalid recipients. This leads to the double bounces.
> In fact, this leads to (number of invalid recipients)+1 bounce mails,
> though nobody seems to have reported this! When
> EXPLICIT_BOUNCE_ON_BAD_ADDRESS is undefined, this leads to one bounce