David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 00:19 -0400, Dave Lugo wrote:
>
>>I've been considering accepting multiple rcpt_to, and setting up
>>some sort of recursive loop in the DATA acl to churn through each
>>rcpt's SA prefs.
>>
>> . If all the recipients' configs say 'accept', it's 250'd.
>>
>> . If all the recipients' configs say 'reject', it's 5xx'd.
>>
>> . If some of the recipients' configs say 'reject', 5xx it,
>> AND give a detailed rejection message along the lines of:
>>
>>(adjust as needed for multiline responses)
>>
>>550 One or more recipient addresses were unable to accept
>> this message.
>> REJECTED: user@???, joe@???
>> ACCEPTED: frank@???
>>
>>
>>My possibly flawed thinking runs along the lines of:
>>
>> . real mailing lists use VERP, and don't do multiple rcpt_to
>> . stuff to multiple rcpts like this usually person-to-person,
>> and they might notice the rejection
>>
>>
>>Has anyone tried something like this?
>
>
> It's something I plan to do when I eventually get round to it.
>
> I was originally going to defer in the third case (some want it, some
> don't), remember the sender address, and then for a while accept only
> one RCPT per MAIL FROM that address, so that I could then accept or
> reject individual copies when it's retried.
>
> It would probably be better to fakereject with a message like the one
> you show above though, and actually deliver it to the recipients who
> want it.
>
ACK. *and* keep in mind that rather than walking a router-chain 'early' in
modified 'verify' mode (*during* smtp-time), OR relying on acl_m(x) variables
exclusively, the user prefs, score retention, and message-generation templates
can be derived otherwise, and at any time after the minimum data they need
becomes available *or has been stored externally* prior to acl_m/c re-use.
An SQL INSERT, UPDATE, or SELECT, for example can be called *anywhere* in acl's,
routers, or transports, and SQL RDBMS have their own capabilites for complex
comparisons, triggers, rules, stored procedures, and embedded languages as well.
CAVEAT: Don't try this at home...
;-)
Bill
