I see;
So I have to find another way for verification
Thanks
Wolfgang
On 21.04.2003 21:48:35 Philip Hazel wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 Wolfgang.Fuertbauer@??? wrote:
>
>> >however; I'll try to hack it on a testserver and replace RCTP TO with
>> VRFY; lets see
>
>That will cause exim to send HELO, MAIL, VRFY, which isn't I suspect
>what you want.
>
>> If there is a wishlist for a next release: I'd like to put it on it ;
>
>I do not like this idea, for this reason:
>
>. The point of sender verification is to answer the question "can I
>deliver a bounce message to this address?" Successful routing gives some
>of the answer; callback helps with additional information.
>
>. The point of recipient verification is to answer the question "can I
>delivery this message to this address?" Again, successful routing gives
>some of the answer, and callforward helps with additional information.
>
>The delivery commands are MAIL followed by RCPT. That is why Exim uses
>those for callouts. They give some assurance that delivery is likely to
>be successful. There is no such assurance for VRFY, a command that many
>sysadmins lock out. Other MTAs always answer "yes" to all VRFYs, which
>makes it pretty useless. Indeed, it is now recommended that the "don't
>support" response to VRFY is 252 rather than 5xx because of such
>behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Fuertbauer (E-Mail: Wolfgang.Fuertbauer@???)
EBEWE Pharma Tel: ++43 7665 8123 315
Mondseestrasse 11 Fax: ++43 7665 8123 11
4866 Unterach, Austria
http://www.ebewe.com
