Re: [exim] conducive.org

David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 18:43 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>As we have no such user as:
>>gandalf.llorien.org-1159383911-testing@???
>>This was neither....
>
>
> That's done in order to reduce the load on the server we call out to.

Works very well, too!

The LBL rejection it eventually sets up (not always right away) is a very
liteweight process, and thereafter we get *zero* load on the mailstore.

>
> While we happen to be connected after a successful callout, we try a
> second RCPT with an address which is fairly sure to fail.

and which RFC and paragraph defines how *those* SHOULD / MUST be responded to?

> If _that_ is
> accepted, we assume that the server in question will accept _all_
> callouts, so we don't bother to make any more (at least until the cache
> expires).
>

Bill