On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:50:14 +0200
Heiko Schlittermann <hs@???> wrote:
> But I guess, they really need to send bounce messages. If my smarthost
> would deny sending bounces, I'd change the smarthost.
I'm happy for them to send bounces but would rather they don't send lots of them to obviously forged addresses, and that they know when their bounces aren't going anywhere.
> 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.
This is a reasonable alternative - thanks for this suggestion.
> 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.
I would however still like to do this and I don't think it's likely to cause any problems.
> (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 …)
And sends the message where? I simply want to return non-deliverable bounces to their true originators (the address the user authenticated with to relay mail through me), the machine handles authenticated SMTP relay only.
--
Andrew Lewis <exim@???>
________________________________________
/ Never accept an invitation from a \
| stranger unless he gives you candy. -- |
\ Linda Festa /
----------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
