Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
I agree with you. I think the correct thing to do would be:
That would mean that on any 5xx status, the check result would be immediately negative, while on any 4xx status the further MX servers would be tried. I think this comes to standard mail server behaviour as close as we can get. And having said all that, I agree that the situation that one MX creates a 5xx message and the other one accepts the same address is an extremely rare case, I think it can only happen through a misconfiguration. Anyway exiting early on 5xx is probably better anyway, since it saves time and bandwidth. If we agree on the 3 changes above, I can include them in the upcoming PR. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hey @reinhard-mueller, I have doubts about "emulating the true SMTP process".
Right now in the current planned major release you helped with, the module will probe through all MX hosts, collect information about delivery status and only bail out with an early positive if one of the MX hosts is positive.
This brings up an issue: in a (super-rare) case of a primary MX host being negative and a secondary positive, the module will still indicate positive.
Problem is, the way I've seen (with postfix at least), it's not the real-world scenario. Postfix will go through all MX hosts and bail out early on the first negative. This could lead to a problem of bounced emails where a secondary MX host (a relay) will accept the email and try to deliver to the primary MX host that fails, and then respond with a bounce notification email to the sender. Hence, I think it's not the proper functionality.
Can you add your 2 cents here? Not sure what MTA you use but if we want to be precise, the current planned functionality is not 100% accurate, at least not in the case of the postfix MTA.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions