Chris's Wiki :: blog/spam/IgnoringSMTPFailures Commentshttps://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/spam/IgnoringSMTPFailures?atomcommentsDWiki2017-07-31T05:08:13ZRecent comments in Chris's Wiki :: blog/spam/IgnoringSMTPFailures.By aninternetguy on /blog/spam/IgnoringSMTPFailurestag:CSpace:blog/spam/IgnoringSMTPFailures:724c50b7275e5c8af62ebc341863aa6dacafaff0aninternetguy<div class="wikitext"><p>Looks like these guys are using <a href="http://sentora.org">Sentora</a>. The problem is/was probably with the way Sentora currently configures postfix on install, it sets soft_bounce=yes. See the post from stra2017 here: <a href="http://forums.sentora.org/showthread.php?tid=3711">sentora.org - spam email complaint</a>. I don't suppose anybody really wants to get in touch with the spammers and let them know how to improve their systems?</p>
<p>Here's the word from Postfix themselves on soft_bounce config details: <a href="http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#soft_bounce">postfix.org - postconf - soft_bounce</a></p>
<p>soft_bounce (default: no)
Safety net to keep mail queued that would otherwise be returned to the sender. This parameter disables locally-generated bounces, changes the handling of negative responses from remote servers, content filters or plugins, and prevents the Postfix SMTP server from rejecting mail permanently by changing 5xx reply codes into 4xx. However, soft_bounce is no cure for address rewriting mistakes or mail routing mistakes.</p>
</div>2017-07-31T05:08:13Z