On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Oliver Egginger wrote:
[> I wrote, but Oliver snipped the attribution:]
>> Which means, to anyone who understands English, that you have to have a
>> pretty good reason to emit null-reverse-path mail for any reason other
>> than the standards-track RFC (all of which, to my knowledge, are based on
>> reverse paths of incoming messages).
> It's advisable to do sender callouts with a null-reverse-path.
> At the moment we do sender callouts and reject every message which can't
> be verified by a callout. But by reading this thread I arrive at the
> conclusion that I'll better disable all denies which are based on sender
> callouts.
One could argue that it's not advisable to do sender callouts at all. However,
the sender callout is triggered by the return-path of an incoming message.
Which gets me back to my point.
Cheers
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick <mbm@???> http://colondot.net/
(Please use this address to reply)
