Re: [exim] conducive.org

David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 22:06 +0800, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>Stuart Gall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello
>>>Is the random callout negative reply cached so that in future
>>>callouts only the sender is checked ?
>>>Which cache ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Stuart.
>>>
>>
>>Dunno what you mean. Wrong thread maybe?
>
>
> No, it makes perfect sense. I suspect you're now being deliberately
> obtuse.

Thread title has my domain.tld. Started over a blacklisting message used here.

As pointed out we do not DO callouts, hence no 'negative reply'.

That would have to do with whomever did do such a callout at the other end.

Now if the question is in regard to the blacklisting, there are several.

The one the OP had gotten into was non-expiring, or more realistically, I
manually clean entries out of it every six to twelve months if the auto-DB has
no new hits.

>
> However, I don't know the answer (at least not without looking at the
> source or documentation as Stuart could have done too) so I didn't
> respond.
>
>

I don't mind that part - but the question iself did not seen to relate to
previous discussion thread here, and *DID* seem closer to another thread
currently running where there is a multi-way piss-up over the value/lack therof
of callouts in the broader sense, and whom should stand the CPU cycles and b/w
being 'stolen', etc. ad nauseum.

Bill