Author: Exim users mailing list Date: To: Peter Bowyer CC: Exim users mailing list Subject: Re: [exim] sender callout mail_from change
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:04 +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > Correct. I think Marcus's suggestion of a non-null but
> reserved-for-the-purpose sender to use in callouts might work well,
> though. Force an 'accept' on it when you see it as a recipient, but
> reject after data if anything gets that far.
>
> Of course this is bending the orginal purpose of sender callouts -
> which is to find out, before accepting responsibility for a message,
> if we would be able to send a DSN back if we needed to.
indeed, and it will break sites using BATV, since
<localpart+cookie@domain>
is *only* valid as a recipient when the sender is <>. attempts to send
e-mail to such an address from a normal (ie. non-empty) address will be
rejected.
why would you use anything other than <> for sender callouts?
