Re: [Exim] Re: Untrusted users setting the return-path

Philip Hazel writes ("Re: [Exim] Re: Untrusted users setting the return-path"):
> I never trust patches without understanding them. "Doing something about
> it" will consist of looking at your patch, thinking about the
> requirements, and then deciding what to do.

Excellent.

> Point about allowing only sender forgery is noted.

Thanks. As said, I don't mind if Sender forgery is disallowed --
return-path `forgery' without Received `forgery' is the kind I
wanted ...

Ian.