At 22:12 +0100 2003/06/30, Andrew - Supernews wrote:
> >>>>> "Giuliano" == Giuliano Gavazzi <eximlists@???> writes:
>
> Giuliano> could you expand on that please? I also think exim sender
> Giuliano> callout has its shorcomings and that, although sender
> Giuliano> callout can never be perfect, it could be improved. We
> Giuliano> might have different ideas on where it should be improved.
>
>There's one known case (though it has not actually happened yet to my
>knowledge) where enabling sender callout will cause a site to fail to
>receive mail from us; if you make the callout attempts from an IP
>address which is listed on a dynamic-IPs list (currently
>dynablock.easynet.nl), or on one of a number of proxy and spam-sources
>blacklists, then the default timeouts will be too short to get the
>successful response from the verification, and you'll just defer the
>message forever unless you lengthen the timeout (to at least a couple
>of minutes) or set defer_ok.
this is because, apart from the HELO phase, a server should offer a
clean path to verification using a null sender. As I said in another
message, the rejection (if it need be) can be done at DATA for this
particular case.
Giuliano
--
H U M P H
|| |||
software
Java & C++ Server/Client/Human Interface applications on MacOS - MacOS X
http://www.humph.com/
