On 11 Apr 2005 at 9:49, Ian FREISLICH wrote about
"Re: [exim] Sender callouts ":
| "Fred Viles" wrote:
|...
| > Still, ISTM it doesn't make sense to try use_sender as a fallback (as
| > opposed to use_postmaster) since it is entirely reasonable for sites
| > to block spoofed local sender addresses.
|
| use_postmaster
|
| This parameter applies to recipient callouts only. For example:
|...
| Either way exim requires a patch.
Right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
| Either way it allows you to do
| some foot shooting, besides exim is so flexible, if used incorrectly
| allows some severe foot shooting. On that case alone, I'd argue
| for both use_postmaster and use_sender to be allowed in sender
| callouts.
OTOH, use_postmaster is potentially usefull and does not tell lies,
while use_sender tells lies for no usefull purpose (IMHO).
It's true that extra care must be taken to avoid verify loops if you
use the option (don't do callout sender verification for postmaster),
but that is easy and would be documented. Perhaps it could even be
made automatic...
| The latter, because if you allow use_postmaster, you can
| set the postmaster address, so you don't really gain anything by
| denying use_sender.
I'd argue that the existance of an explicit option to do something
implies that that there are cases where that something is a good
thing to do. So implementing options just for orthogonality does
have a negative aspect in certain cases.
- Fred
