On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 09:40:21AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:44:27AM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > This is fine. What this means to me is that once I have confirmed that
> > your server accepts all local parts (or at least a sufficiently random
> > one), I can cache that fact and stop sending sender verification
>
> That sounds like an unimaginably bad idea to me, and defeats a lot of the
> point of having callouts in the first place.
Why would that be?
They accept null envelopes, but they will also accept any rcpt to you
throw at them.
Why waste your resources and theirs to do callbacks in this case?
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems & security ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | Finger marc_f@??? for PGP key
