Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2004-02-13 Eli <eli-list@???> wrote:
>> Ian Toogood wrote:
>>> I know this is an old thread, but I'm having the same problem with
>>> MX's that reject MAIL FROM: <> being blocked
>>>
>>> Was there anything resolved regarding this issue - the callout
>>> verification stops a LOT of spam, and I am unwilling to turn it off
> [...]
>> Or I could be entirely off base with what this thread is about - in
>> which case ignore me :)
>
> You are, the "problem" is this: Your server receives mail from foo@1
> to bar@yourdomain and wants to check foo@1 for validity. - Exim
> contacts the mx and sends
> mail from:<>
> rcpt to:<foo@1>
> quit
>
> If the mx rejects nullsenders at all, this fails for all addresses
> @foo, so you have to diesable callout for @foo.
>
> Phil has said quite clearly that he is not going to change callback to
> (optionally) use something else but the null sender for callbacks, the
> danger of breakage (loops) is too big.
Ah, silly me :P In that case, I'd have to agree with the way Exim currently
does callout verifications then. Specifying a non null sender could spell
disaster as. Personally, as much email as may be deferred or rejected due
to mail servers not accepting null senders, I would prefer to see
administrators fixing their broken servers than having the good ones making
exceptions for broken servers. If not, what's the point of the RFC's and
standards/rules? :P
