The Community Forums

Interact with an entire community of cPanel & WHM users!
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

:fail: and Autoresponders Ping-pong

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by riostyles, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. riostyles

    riostyles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro / Brazil
    Hello the Forum, my first post

    Concerning E-mail Cpanel.
    Have a go and back problem with Autoanswer if the sender have also an autoanswer. The mail bounces back and forth indefinitely. I do not see a decent solution.

    The catchall being submerged with the mydoom mailers on a production site by bounced/rejected/... emails like dan@mysite.com, ruth@mysite.com (forged IP and fake names).
    I activated :fail: desactivating the catch all in "default address". I sow the bandwidth of the site growing to the sky. I presume was also a ping-pong like the precedent.
    I reset mysite.com to mysite after two days.
    What's surprising is that the flooding do not reappear.
    Is there a way for to observe the E-mail activity (Have the WHM over the domain).
    Thank you for sme clue.

    cPanel.net Support Ticket Number: none
     
  2. maverick

    maverick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Use the :blackhole: option instead? We had a similar problem here. Users are often tempted by the :fail: option, but it causes hell in the mail queue. Actually it would be nice if the option could be made invisible to users - I'd rather they weren't able to use it all - in this era of spoofing spam it can only lead to problems.

    Mav.
     
  3. raventec

    raventec Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2003
    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    This should definitely be an option to turn it off. heh, either that or a script to change all the instances of :fail: to :blackhole:
     
  4. riostyles

    riostyles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro / Brazil
    Thank you for your answers.
    When I choose :fail: instead of :blackhole: was on the edge, finally :fail: for to send back the crap received rather than clean the trash for them.
    This short experience make me comfortable with the :fail:, why?
    I use the catch-all as a customer service. From time to time, I have a reel misspelled mail.
    When I set-up the :fail: I had around 250 crappy mails, 60% due to mydoom.
    I Let :fail: 2 days and removed it.
    Next day, 1 bounce originated by mydoom
    Today 2 bounces (mydoom) and three sales@… logo boops and money. INSTEAD of 250.

    For me this means that somewhere somebody(ies) received my signal and corrected HIS problem saving me and the web from 1000’s of mails but possibly also 1000’s of other domains being submerged, each, with 1000’s of mails.

    As today, my opinion is to "give" a short :fail: from time to time if and when the invasion reappears.
    What's your opinion?
     
  5. riostyles

    riostyles Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro / Brazil
  6. Cozminsky

    Cozminsky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    :fail:

    I'd say this wouldn't be a major issue if you made the rcpt acl verify the recipient first. In this situation the email will be rejected by the server before you've used any bandwidth and the remote server will have to generate the delivery failure. Also auto responders should be sending as a bounce message so they don't generate bounce messages etc.
     
Loading...

Share This Page