On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:55:59AM +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:50:56AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 11:40:43AM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > > a) Exim is now using the original sender address rather than <>
> > > to do callouts
> > > b) Exim is not distinguishing between a rejection of the MAIL
> > > and RCPT verbs in the context of recipient verification
> > Erm, of course b) is slightly incorrect. The rejection is happening at
> > the RCPT stage, because that's when the callout is happening. The
> > problem is entirely point a). Which is a big problem.
>
> Not doing it is also a big problem, especially with certain addresses
> configured not to accept bounces (because they should never be sending
> mail). Really you want to be cacheing the tuple, I think.
>
?? When doing callout verification, exim should always be using the <>
address. The purpose is to verify the address that exim places in the
RCPT verb. When exim is doing recipient verification, as here, that
address is the rcpt address from the original connection. When doing
sender verification, it's the original sender address. But exim should
always use <> in the MAIl verb because that should never be rejected
(broken mail setups that do reject it only have themselves to blame).
--
Bruce
I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without
constructive purpose. -- Spock
