Re: [Exim] headers_check_syntax

On Thu, 25 May 2000, Philip Hazel wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Dave C. wrote:
>
> > In fact, all the check_* options are good candidates to be host-lists
> > to apply the check to instead of booleans.
>
> This is a plausible idea, which I will put on the Wish List, but it
> seems to me to be a little bit strange. You are prepared to pass through
> broken messages if they come from some hosts, but not if they come from
> others? What is the point in making this distinction? If you are going
> to pass on broken messages at all, why bother?

Well, the concept is that if they are generated by one of our
customers, its probably not spam (and if it is, we can electrocute them
ourselves), but if its from a remote host, then the probability of it
being junk is signifigantly higher.

The main problem being of course that OutCrap Express generates
incorrect headers by default, and has no option to use correct ones,
for this specific case.