[Exim] Re: Exim error message patch / callouts (after 4.14 r…

Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: Marc MERLIN
Date:  
To: Philip Hazel
CC: kpfleming, exim-users
Subject: [Exim] Re: Exim error message patch / callouts (after 4.14 release)
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 08:42:45PM +0100, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> It is unclear what callout_domain_positive_expire does. Callouts don't
> just check hosts, they check Email addresses, so having a domain-wide
> callout failure that we remember is useful, but I don't see why we would
> care to cache the last domain wide success: next time, we'll have to
> check the domain unless the previous address succeeded
> If I missed something, the option needs better documentation :-)


Kevin, do you mind sending a quick blurb to Philip about this option
or removing it altogether? (I can't see a use for it personally and I
was scratching my head wondering what it did)

Philip, I wanted to thank you for including the last portion of my
callout suggestions in the code.
Hopefully I'll be able to get exim 4.14 up on my systems soon and try
that out for all the possible cases.

> - I don't see any specific text for when a postmaster callout fails, as
> in:

(...)
> - I don't see any specific code to deal with the very common MAIL FROM: <>
> rejection by giving a more explicit error message. I believe this is


This all looks good in 4.14, thanks.

> - At this point, since some people have requested it, as an enhancement,
> we should probably add a probe_from option, which if set, will first
> do the callout with MAIL FROM: <>, but if that fails, would use the
> specified address (not very likely to create a loop since the other
> host is not running callouts, otherwise, it would implement null env from
> properly (or at least, we hope so)


Philip, if we dug up a patch that did the above (I think someone did
one, and unfortunately I can't volunteer myself for the near to middle
future), would you accept it?
I'm honestly not a fan of doing this, but it doesn't seem too evil to do
for us, and it should also fairly safe. If that's the only way some
people will be able to run callouts, it's better than nothing, wouldn't
you agree?

Let's say that we can use postmaster@domain as a fallback for <> on a
callout, and make sure that we don't do callouts ourselves if someone
probes our local postmaster account.

What do you think?

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