At 12:19 pm -0700 2004/10/29, Marc Perkel wrote: >Giuliano Gavazzi wrote: [...] >>argh Mark! you've been long enough on this list to know that
>>"bounce" is bad. Besides, if you alter the return path, how do you
>>rebuild the original sender? by adding a new header? Dodgy. Just
>>forget about bounces.
>>Another aside: do you check the recipients or just accept blindly?
>>I hope the former, for the usual reasons.
>>
>I think maybe I wasn't clear. When I pass the message on to the
>target server - if the message bounces there - sy due to an invalid
>address - then the bounce is returned directly to the sender. What
>I'm considering is altering
alleged sender...
>the return path so the bounce comes back to my server - I do
>something with it - and then I restor the original return address
>and send it on.
>
>This allows me to inspect what fails to deliver for statistical
>reasons looking for new spam fighting tricks.
I think you were clear, if I understand correctly, either way a
bounce is generated. Cannot you perform a recipient callout?
