On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> I brought this up on the list yesterday. It seems that the recipient
> callout logic was changed to use the original sender address and not <>.
Hmmm, I can see why this might be useful - but personally I would prefer
if the old way could be flagged, and additionally in a similar way to what
"random" does now be able to tell the thing to start the verify with a <>
call and if that fails then to cache fail for the receipient as a whole -
otherwise the recipient callout cache is going to be 99% useless as it has
to callout for a billion different spam senders all the same receipient.
