On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:59:50PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 12:37:13PM +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 01:02:52PM +0200, Tamas TEVESZ wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > a) Exim is now using the original sender address rather than <>
> > > > > to do callouts
> > >
> > > > the RCPT stage, because that's when the callout is happening. The
> > > > problem is entirely point a). Which is a big problem.
> > >
> > > because? that's how it will be sent on to the internal host, afterall.
> >
> > It's a bloody big problem because Exim doesn't detect a rejection of the
> > MAIL verb, It treats a rejection of the MAIL verb as a rejection of the
> > RCPT verb and then, presumably because this change was unitentional,
> > WRONGLY REJECTS EVERY SINGLE RECIPIENT FOR THAT DOMAIN, based on
> > incorrect cached callout data. Are you quite clear about that, now?
>
> On further investigation, this is clearly a bug. The exim documentation
> states quite clearly that the sender address in callout verification is
> <>.
[...]
No. You have to read spec.txt *together* with NewStuff to get the full
correct documentation.
cu andreas
