Re: [exim] Limit number of recipients

"Fred Viles"
>
..[snip]...
>
> That's not all it does, it also 554's the DATA command. No recipient
> gets the message, same as with the ACL approach. I think this is the
> bit you and Tony are overlooking.

I was overlooking that, I only skimmed the Docs on it when I went to
re-read the spec before I originally posted, OOPS! Shame on me for that.

>
..[snip]...
>
> (assuming you mean recipients_max+recipients_max_reject)
> Right. And my question for you was: how is that different from
> rejecting the DATA command based on $rcpt_count in an ACL?

It's not, but again, I missed the 554 at DATA for recipients_max_reject

>
..[snip]...
>
> But that's what the OP asked for. If you want to argue that what he
> wants to do is a bad idea, that's fine. But it sounded like you were
> just saying recipients_max+recipients_max_reject was a bad way to get
> there, not that he shouldn't want to go.

I am not arguing or disagreeing with what the OP wants to do, just that
the first three or so posts back to him all delt with doing it in the
ACL (which is more complicated) when there was no need to do it there.

Now, even I can argue that there may be valid reasons to use an ACL over
a global setting, as with ACL's it is easier to 'turn on/off' the
desired policy for individual hosts/senders/recipients, etc. But that
is an entirely different matter.

Again, I jumped into this thread just to note that there is already a
global configuration option(s) to do either.

Either being temp fail over x amount or RCPT's, or perm fail x RCPT's,
I only missed that the perm fail option also failed to ALL RCPT's
not just thost after x number.

> | It may be true that the OP does want to reject any message that has |
> been sent to more than 100 recipients in the same transaction, in |
> which case, Tony's suggestion does just that, and recipients_max_reject
> | does not.
>
> If true, that's what I'm (still) missing. As I read the spec, it
> *does*.

My second time through, a touch slower this time, I read the same ;)


--

--EAL--

--