Alastair Campbell wrote:
>> I'd use only the first one.
> Ok, thanks. I'll look up acl_smtp_data in the Exim docs to get my
> bearing, and hopefully find a way of testing it before it becomes active.
Oh, sorry, braino (it was way too late), I meant the second one, i.e. in
acl_check_rcpt, because bounces get rejected at an earlier stage and some
broken MTAs may not stop sending on 5xx after DATA phase. OTOH, some
broken MTAs might use something different than <> for bounces (you never
know...), but that's quite uncommon, I think. You could use both ACL
stanzas, but the effect is minimal and the filtering on the subject has a
certain potential for false positives, so I think it wouldn't make things
better.
>> As already pointed out: It's time to get rid of the catchall.
>> It's bad karma ;)
> I'm afraid it's too late, I've used it over the last 5 years, and didn't
> keep track of all the addresses used.
Same here. I think it's not _that_ bad, but from todays view I'd rather
use jh-something@???
