Re: [exim] Verification Question - Random

Marc Perkel wrote:
>
...

>>>
>>>
>> I used it for sender verification, not for recipient verification. There
>> is a continuous debate about this kind of verification when there is a
>> massive joe job. So this is a dilemma if you wish to verify every each
>> address, you should accept being blacklisted. I think sender
>> verification should only be used when the mail is already a spam suspect.
>>
>> If you use it for recipient verification, that generally means you are
>> an MX gateway for some domains and that they should trust you if they
>> are renting your services. If domains you are an MX for blacklist you or
>> make you blacklisted, they just should fix their configuration.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I run a front end spam filtering service. To reduce sender verification
> I do recipient verification first. The idea being that if the recipient
> fails then I need not verify the sender. But some of my customers will
> accept anything so I end up doing sender verification on every message
> for them.
>
> So - my original thinking as if the customer accepted any address I
> wouldn't do sender verification for them.
>
> But - this random thing looks very interesting. I can see how it would
> prevent a lot of lookups if the sender accepted random addresses. But
> would it result in additional callouts if the sender does NOT accept
> random addresses.

Actually a recipient callout costs less than accepting the whole data
and trying to deliver it.

>
> Ideally if the random call failed then Exim should remember that to and
> not make a new random call the next time. The docs say that it remembers
> if the random call suceded, but will it remember if it fails?

If it fails, I think it will still retry a random callout the next time.