Re: [exim] Re: bounce messages and their potential misuse

On 31/03/06, Jeremy Harris <jgh@???> wrote:
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <adam00f@???> wrote:
> >>I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
> >>smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
> >>IP range it's supposed to cover,
>
> That part it what it shouldn't do. By all means reject anything not
> from that trusted IP range, but also do recipient verify callout
> and reject anything that fails.
>
> >> and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
> >>non-local recipients.
> >>
> >>That's the sort of situation in which I was under the impression that
> >>MTA(n-1) would often be unable to get the recipient-verify callout
> >>information. Have I got this wrong?
>
> I don't see why "unable". Could you expand?
>
>
> > You're right, it wouldn't use callouts.
>
> I disagree. It should.

We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary
destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time,
because it can deliver a bounce to the known sender if it's unable to
deliver a message.

Peter


--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@???