--On 15 September 2009 02:22:59 +0200 Andrew Lewis <exim@???> wrote:
> > 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 are generating these, which is a step in the right
> direction (my queue remaining un-polluted is a happy side-effect).
We see a similar problem, whereby auto-replies are sent by exim to
non-deliverable addresses. Exim is replying to the "From:" header, not the
envelope sender, and (correctly) using a null sender. I'm not so sure the
auto-replying to the "From:" address is correct, but I think the
auto-replies (vacation messages) aren't sent when the original envelope
sender is empty.
Very many of the undeliverable vacation messages that I see are for
delivery to addresses like "noreply@...". Clearly the sender doesn't want
auto-replies, but is not using any sensible way of discouraging them. In
our case, meeting any of Exim's "if personal" test conditions would work.
For example, and "Auto-submitted:" header might be suitable.
> The ID they authenticate with will always be a mailbox I control, so I
> would know for sure I can deliver mail there.
>
> Mailer in question handles authenticated SMTP relay only.
>
> -AL.
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
