-----Original Message-----
Friday, May 7, 2004, 4:33:51 PM, ph10@??? wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004, Andy Fletcher wrote: >> Thanks, that's what I thought by reading the manual. So it is the case
>> that recipient callouts could quite easily be made to 'external'
>> domains, if there are forwarding arrangements setup that cause it. > Yes, but it seems most unlikely. Hosts that are going to use recipient
> callouts are going to use them for domains they know they want to relay
> for. For those domains, they won't also be doing local aliasing. >> This brings me back to my point about "use_sender" on recipient
>> callouts vs sender callouts - the recipient callout is just as likely
>> (in this scenario) to cause cascading/possibly looping callouts, is it
>> not? > Maybe, but as I said above, I don't think anyone would actually use
> recipient callouts in such a way as to make this happen. > And note that, by default, recipient callouts use MAIL FROM:<> > (I'm beginning to regret that I made them do anything else... :-)
*laughs* Sorry :-)
I take all your points on board, and clearly there's been thought
about how this was done as all my arguments have been met with equal
or better counters.
In a wider sense, is there any prospect for any other method than a
null MAIL FROM being viable for sender callouts. I'd imagine the
number of mail servers rejecting this is only going to grow as people
(perhaps incorrectly) try to combat the spam problem in their own way.
