On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Glenn Carver wrote:
[what seems to be irrelevant previous problem snipped]
> Incoming email is being rejected from sun.com:
Incoming email from bbnplanet.com with an envelope sender in
see.sun.com is being rejected, indeed. Now that you mention it, I see
a couple of those in our log also, and their From: header also uses
this domain, see.sun.com
2002-08-03 11:11:53 sun-9.sjc-colo.bbnplanet.com [207.240.115.10] in
RBL list at bl.spamcop.net (warning mode)
2002-08-03 11:11:54 17avt4-0000cX-00 rejected from
sun-9.sjc-colo.bbnplanet.com
(news.iplanet.com) [207.240.115.10]: cannot route to sender
<bounce@???>
There was also one similar from sun-24.sjc-colo.bbnplanet.com
> 2002-08-02 14:52:31 H=sun-9.sjc-colo.bbnplanet.com (news.iplanet.com)
> [207.240.115.10] sender verify fail for <bounce@???>: all
> relevant MX records point to non-existent hosts or (invalidly) to IP
> addresses
Seems a clear enough explanation of the problem. How about informing
their higher-level postmaster, if you're keen to get this sorted out?
Spamcop shows that some of the recipients of this stuff rated it as
spam anyway
http://spamcop.net/w3m?action=checkblock&ip=207.240.115.10
> Presumably increasing hosts_max_try in the smtp transport is not
> going to make any difference here since this is incoming?
Indeed, hence my reference to "irrelevant" above.
> How do I solve this one?
(Solve? Seems to me that exim is working as designed....)
Which exim version?
In the v3 configuration, I think if you want to accept stuff like
this, you'd want to have a negative entry in sender_verify_hosts for
the mailer which is offering you this mail.
Something like
sender_verify_hosts = "! *.sjc-colo.bbnplanet.com"
should achieve sufficient breakage to let this broken mail in.
Good luck.
