Author: Alan J. Flavell Date: To: Dave C. CC: Exim users list Subject: Re: [Exim] Wish list (I think) regarding sender verify callout.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Dave C. wrote:
> Hrm. That would work, ut does lessen the usefulness. Spammers dont stick
> to forging certain domains, they randomize.
I know - and one has to reckon on them moving to counterfeit addresses
in domains for which callback is known to be useless. Which is why we
need other strings (e.g SA) to our bow.
But meantime, I don't mind using whatever seems to work.
> Actually, to tell the truth, I think calbacks would be FAR more flexible
> and powerful if you added a way to determine when to do a callback
> (based on whatever ACL conditions you wanted),
Is that part a problem right now?
> but then set (true/false) variables such as:
>
> $callback_host_rejected_connection
> $callback_host_connection_timed_out
> $callback_host_accepted_null_sender
> $callback_host_accepted_sender_as_recipient
> $callback_host_accepted_random_recipient
Sounds like a useful enhancement. Some BOFHs amongst us would
also demand acceptance of "postmaster" ;-)
