Author: Walt Reed Date: To: Exim User's Mailing List Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
bounces...
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:45:17AM +0100, Matthew Newton said: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:07:19AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > > Greg A. Woods <woods@???> wrote:
> > > > An extremely large number of domains fronted by Exim are now refusing
> > > > bounce messages
> >
> > If the software implementing the protocol cannot do so with minium
> > correctness despite the best efforts of the admin to confound it,
> > i.e. if that software cannot at least make it _VERY_ difficult for its
> > admin to break key core aspects of the protocol, such as _ERROR_
> > _HANDLING_, then that software is buggy and perhaps even broken by
> > design.
>
> There is nothing wrong with exim. It is perfectly permissible to block
> bounce messages in some circumstances, such as when that particular
> account never sends mail, or if the server is outgoing only (so the
> bounces should return by a different server). I added blocks for two
> accounts here the other day that were receiving bogus bounces, purely
> because they never send any mail.
I also had a need to reject bounce messages from a certain host...
Someone signed up for a high-volume mailing list and their server was
bouncing messages to the "From:" header addresses... Talk about
clueless!
No, Exim should NOT be made more difficult to configure. Shunning hosts
with improperly configured mail servers is a much better solution. Anyone
rejecting all bounce messages has deliberatly configured their server to
do so.
