On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:18:50PM -0500, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> Well, AOL is RFC I :
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.cgi?domain=aol.com
RFC-I are RFC-I. So what? They can't tell the difference between Standards
Track and Draft.
> | We had callbacks enabled for aol.com, and I find if I try manually
> | reproducing the effect of a callback to them I get
> | ...
> | rcpt to:<MAILER-DAEMON@???>
> | 550 MAILBOX NOT FOUND
> | Any comments to help me understand what's going on, please?
> AOL claims that that address doesn't exist. If exim needs to bounce
> the incoming message (for whatever reason), how can it do so?
If you'd read the thread, you'd know that this was a bounce in a header
line. Your MTA should *NEVER* bounce to an address that only appears in
the header line. Therefore this argument is unhelpful and useless.
It is perfectly reasonable for that address not to exist. What, is the
user going to reply offering sexual favours to "Mr. Mailer Daemon" for
attempting to deliver their message? (don't laugh, this has been known
to happen)
> | Should exim be verifying the sender of bounces via callback?
> The sender of a bounce is supposed to be <> (the "NULL" sender).
> Anything else isn't (really) a bounce message.
This wasn't a sender. This was a header line.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
