Re: [exim] Let the 'postmaster' callout option be damned

Tim Jackson <lists@???> wrote:
> I have a feeling this may well spark some fighting, but a recent
> incident has made me somewhat of the opinion that the "postmaster"
> callout option is, with every respect to Philip, somewhat flawed.
>
> Callouts in any form are certainly controversial and I don't use them
> myself out of respect for the fact that some people consider them
> abuse, although I don't personally particularly object to anyone
> attempting a callout on envelope sender addresses that I use.
> However, the "postmaster" callout option seems to me to be an
> incorrect extrapolation of the logical basis of callouts (which is
> that you don't want to accept mail from an address to which you can't
> send DSNs) into the area of rash assumptions.
>
> Specifically, I do not believe that you can deduce from the fact that
> you are presented with a mail with an envelope sender of
> <foo@???>, that example.com is misconfigured just because you
> cannot send a DSN (specifically) to <postmaster@???>.

It's early, but haven't you got the postmaster logic wrong there? I thought
it was for recip verification callouts, and it it used in place of a null
sender ...

In fact, here's the bit from the docs:

"use_postmaster: This option applies to recipient callouts only. For
example:
deny !verify = recipient/callout=use_postmaster

It causes a non-empty postmaster address to be used in the MAIL command when
performing the callout. The local part of the address is postmaster and the
domain is the contents of $qualify_domain. "


Peter