Author: Wakko Warner Date: To: Marc Perkel CC: exim-users Subject: Re: [exim] Alternate callout verification sequence suggestion
> Yes - it could work but loop avoidance would be such a support issue > that its not worth it. I'm getting more inclined that if they don't play
> be the rules then they don't get to send email to me.
>
> But - auto reporting is still on the table. The very reason for
> accepting nul sender is to avoing looping. So -
> I thing we need to pressure those who don't play be the rules to fix it.
Just so you know, I am not a supporter of doing callouts with non-null
senders. However, the technical aspect was interesting to me. I personally
will not accept email from servers who inturn do not accept mail from the
null sender. I have also been doing this at work and have only white listed
1 or 2 domains. For my server, I doubt I'll change my position on this as I
am the only one who uses it. This is also one reason I had never bothered
to hack exim to add this "bug" =)
--
Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
