On 18 Oct 2006, at 17:11, 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.
>
> 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 checked the docs, they are unclear about the negative random callout
verify.c
says
/* If a previous check on a "random" local part was accepted, we
assume
that the server does not do any checking on local parts. There
is therefore
no point in doing the callout, because it will always be
successful. If a
random check previously failed, arrange not to do it again, but
preserve
the data in the new record. If a random check is required but
hasn't been
done, skip the remaining cache processing. */
It is definitely cached, but my C++ is not up to figuring out which
cache is used.
>
>
> --
> dwmw2
>
>
> --
> ## 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/
>
