--On 29 March 2007 11:39:49 +0100 Peter Bowyer <peter@???> wrote:
> On 29/03/07, Ian Eiloart <iane@???> wrote:
>> Actually, the only thing 'Perkel specific' here is the objections that
>> are being raised. Had anyone else started this thread, I don't believe
>> those objections would have been raised.
>>
>> It's certainly not unusual to discuss the merits of implementing certain
>> features that Exim provides. Indeed, it's quite common for people to
>> reply "you should not do that" in response to a "how to question".
>
> True, but the merits or otherwise of sender callbacks are a path
> well-trodden - a bit like the SPF example that Nigel quotes in the
> list info on the wiki.
Perhaps. I've not checked, but I don't recall any discussion of RBLs
listing (or claiming to list) servers *because* they do sender address
verification callouts. I'm grateful to Marc for alerting us to this. I also
think its interesting to find out something about the RBL, and the people
behind it (including what disinformation is out there).
So, I think this thread has been useful, and would have died already were
it not for the unnecessary complaints.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
x3148
