> There is no likelihood of my changing this. Quite apart from views on > what a callout is supposed to achieve, I think the danger of callout
> loops is too great. (Sure, you can come up with rules that minimize
> this, but it's getting too complicated for comfort.)
But if the option to allow the user of the sender address in callouts
for recipient verification exists, surely this also brings the changes
of callout loops. I don't see an awful lot of difference between the
implementation of "use_sender" on recipient callout vs. sender
callout. Please let me know if I'm missing a vital point here :-)
Andy
-----Original Message-----
Friday, May 7, 2004, 11:04:13 AM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Andy Fletcher wrote: >> 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. > There is no likelihood of my changing this. Quite apart from views on
> what a callout is supposed to achieve, I think the danger of callout
> loops is too great. (Sure, you can come up with rules that minimize
> this, but it's getting too complicated for comfort.)
