On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 06:01:02PM +0300, Odhiambo G. Washington said:
> * On 16/06/06 15:49 +0100, John Burnham wrote:
> | Of course, if you don't have recipient verification enabled then my theory is
> | complete gibberish :)
>
> Not quite, if you factor in the above suspicion..
> Having disabled that rule, the message is now gone. However, I still
> want to verify the recipient somehow, before accepting the mail. I think
> I am going for "recipient callout". Now heading back to spec.txt..
Well, I think you do still want to verify the recipient, but why do you
not want that router to handle things at verification time, but only at
routing time? Should those addresses not be externally addressable?
That wasn't how I understood the original problem, so perhaps just
removing the no_verify line is simplest.
Take care,
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | There's something to be said for |
| steve@??? | returning the whole syntax tree. |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | -- Larry Wall in |
| | <199710221833.LAA24741@???> |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
