On 18 Oct 2006, at 17:06, 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?
>
> We don't do callouts in particular or 'random' anything in general ...
> unless Bushmill's malt is involved...
>
You were complaining that you received a randomized callout, _Given_
that someone has decided to do callouts the random option is a good
idea.
It annoys you so I wondered if the negative result is cached, at least.
VIZ
>>> There *were no* other connections in our logs to that IP OR
>>> hostname OR even
>>> <domain>.<tld> anywhere near the same day, so a sender verify it
>>> certainly was NOT.
>>>
>>> But creative garbage of that sort is what DOES make support hard
>>> for sender
>>> verification hard to justify.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and
>>> smells of duck
>>> feces, we will call it a duck and blacklist the source like any
>>> other dictionary
>>> attack source.
>>>
>>> Absent any time-related connections, how should one expect to
>>> spot the difference?
> Bill
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
>
