Author: Giuliano Gavazzi Date: To: Exim User's Mailing List Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
bounces...
On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:20, Greg A. Woods wrote:
this sentence:
> However What I've been trying to get across here is that the language
> for expressing ACLs on sender addresses should not allow the admin to
> specify the null return-path sender address in the first place, or
> else
> never allow transactions with a null return-path to be presented to
> ACLs.
>
is somehow in contradiction with the next one:
> The null return path MUST be treated specially since its unique status
> is, and always has been, a primary requirement for error handling
> in the
> SMTP protocol specification and the Internet Host Requirements
> STANDARD.
>
I say somehow because what you propose would indeed mean that it is
treated differently from other addresses, but this difference would
mean that ACLs would not be able to treat it specially.
Indeed it *is* treated specially in Exim, *because* I can distinguish
it from all the other addresses.
If I could not, how would my ACL be able to *not* apply delays on
sender callouts, for instance?
