You could have a special callout from address that didn't do a callout
itself.
Wakko Warner wrote:
>>Good point - I hadn't thought of that.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>>Ignoring for the moment the problems of callouts against callouts and so
>>>forth, there is already use_sender and such for this.
>>>
>>>
>
>Marc, I actually had thought of this. The probably lies in the server who
>originates the first callout. If you use a MAIL
>FROM:<calloutcheck@mydomain>, you beter besure that absolutely no blocks are
>placed on that address when the server you do that callout to calls back to
>you. There will be 2 callouts in this case. If you instead do checks on
>that address, then you will inturn do another callout. You'll runinto a
>loop. It would be your responcibility to prevent this from happening. When
>a check is to your callout@mydomain address, you could set a flag to deny
>the email after data because afterall, this address never sends mail.
>
>
>
