Andrew Lewis <exim@???> (Di 15 Sep 2009 02:22:59 CEST):
> > Indeed it is by design. If I get you right, if you get a NDN
> > (none-delivery-notification, or for the discussion, any other type of
> > message with empty sender, like out of office) which you can not
> > delivery, you like to bounce that? That is a recipe for trouble, meaning
> > you can play ping-pong all day long... Don't do it!
>
> I want to discourage administrators of remote mail systems that are using me
> as a smarthost from sending these messages and if I direct the delivery
> failure notifications at them they should at least be made aware that they
But I guess, they really need to send bounce messages. If my smarthost
would deny sending bounces, I'd change the smarthost.
You could - controled by an ACL rule - do a very strict recipient check
(callout) for messages deliverd with an empty envelope-from. This rises
the chance that you get them out, once you've accepted them.
But you never ever want to replace an empty envelope-from by anything
else than an empty envelope-from. Otherwise you're asking for trouble.
(Imagine, you change replace the envelope-from with a real address, you
deliver this message to the final destiation and for some reason
it generates a bounce message there. And their admin had the same idea
as you …)
Best regards from Dresden/Germany
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE -----------------------------------------
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B ---------------
gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B -
