Giuliano,
To clarify, my question was about sender callouts. I assume from the
discussion this means the changes pointed out do not affect sender
callouts? If so, what is the likelihood of this changing, by either way
I suggested or alternatives - there are a lot of broken mailservers
out there (by design or mistake) which reject a null MAIL TO but which
you'd rather accept mail from than bounce unconditionally just because
of this reason.
I think there was some historical discussion on this, where someone
said that they don't see the primary use of sender callouts as being
to prevent bounces being undeliverable, but in todays world the major
use it combatting spam/UCE/general clutter. I couldn't agree more - if
you're doing recipient verification and rejecting during the
transaction then the only bounces you're likely to get are from full
mailboxes and the like, which should be rather minimal, since most
rejection is done during the transaction.
Andy
> At 8:14 am +0100 2004/05/07, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>Woon Wai Keen @ doubleukay.com <doubleukay@???> wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2004 4:59 AM, Peter Bowyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's there in Exim 4.32 onwards. It was there but broken in 4.31.
>>>
>>> But that's for recipient callouts, and not sender callouts.
>>
>>The OP's question was about null senders on recipient callouts, which is
>>exactly what those changes affect.
> No, the OP's question was about sender callouts:
> At 7:39 pm +0100 2004/05/06, Andy Fletcher wrote:
> [...]
>>Many mailservers are configured (against the RFC guidelines) to refuse
>>mail from "<>". When performing a sender verify callout from exim,
> Unless we are referring to different OPs...
> Giuliano
> --
> ## List details at
> http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at
> http://www.exim.org/ ##
