Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:52:02 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Mail setup broken (still/again?)
Message-ID: <20071016155202.GN3255@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <20071016085209.GD22159@svr2.hagander.net>
	<20071016140750.GF3255@crankycanuck.ca>
	<20071016150248.GJ22159@svr2.hagander.net>
	<20071016152246.GM3255@crankycanuck.ca>
	<20071016153133.GK22159@svr2.hagander.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20071016153133.GK22159@svr2.hagander.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 
> I meant reject, not drop. But it's better for us to reject them at the SMTP
> level than it is to generate our own bounce.

Yeah, that can be more efficient.

> As do I, so yeah, it's fairly simple. But if you have to interface with an
> external system (in this case, hub.org) that makes things a lot more
> complex quickly.

Well, not a _lot_ more complex, I think.  We just need maps special
to each domain, and while I've never done it before, the examples
seem to me to suggest it's straightforward.  I think the trick would
be to design the postgresql.org site the same way as the hub site,
and then leave parts out on postgresql.org, rather than the other way
around.  It _is_ more complex, but with careful choices of
include-file names, it oughta be managable?  (Especially if we have
some documentation ;-)

> Hmm. Interesting idea :) But I'm not sure how big of a problem that part
> really is.

We get a remarkable number of spam on the lists I moderate, at least,
and none of those are -general.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca