Re: [exim] ACL blocks bounces

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:37 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>> If you're going to block messages with no sender, then you should do this
>> in the DATA ACL, otherwise you'll be unable to deliver email to sites that
>> use sender verification callouts.
>
> Um, I don't agree with that. Rather, I'd say "If you're going to block
> messages with no sender, then YOU ARE A BLOODY IDIOT AND SHOULD
> IMMEDIATELY STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD BEFORE YOU DO ANY MORE DAMAGE."
>
> Thankfully, Jan wasn't trying to do that.
>

LOL!

Might be better to say that blocking empty-sender arrivals needs to be done with
care. And tested.

- Quite legitimate to sniff them to insure they are not backscatter spam
attempts. No one loves an MTA that participates in that game, and it isn't hard
to avoid.

- a 'good idea' to accept the legitimate ones for postmaster@, hostmaster@,
abuse@, even webmaster@ by IP-literal as well as by <domain>.<tld> even if you
accept no OTHER traffic by IP-literal. Sometimes DNS and such go pear-shaped and
an IP is all a helpful admin has to let you know you have - or are creating - a
problem.

Many examples here in archives....

Bill