Re: [Exim] Avoiding frozen spam

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:42:06PM +0200, Giuliano Gavazzi said:
> At 11:09 -0700 2003/10/07, Mark Edwards wrote:
> >You guys are suggesting a callout, but I don't want to reject all mail
> >that doesn't have a valid return address. Won't a callout interfere
> >with email from places that intentionally have a bunk return address to
> >prevent people from replying?
>
> oh well, I haven't yet seen a real no-reply address that will fail
> callout (that is that will fail a bounce *attempt*). If there is one,
> then it is bound to carry no useful information (as it can be lost
> with no warning).
> And since that is the case, they should really use a null sender.
> I have a no-reply address that will accept a callout but no data after it...

... Or they should be using a REAL address that just routes to
/dev/null. People that use totally fake return addresses that bounce are
causing lots of problems to other mail system administrators. Frankly,
they MUST use a real return address so that they can clean their list
of bad email addresses. There is no reason to ever accept mail from an
address that won't accept at least a bounce (which callout's masquerade
as AFAIK.)

If you actually DO find a clueless site that insists on sending with a
non-routable address, you can always white-list them.