Hi
Thanks for the feedback. I double checked my logs and noticed that BATV mail tagged with prvs= is being handled correctly. And callouts succeeding.
The problem is limited to mails tagged with BTV1==. Log details below, email addresses removed of course
2010-11-03 13:59:13 H=mcsdspam02.muscogee.k12.ga.us [96.38.231.248] F=<btv1==9238326409d==EMAIL> rejected RCPT <EMAIL>: Sender verify failed
I manually checked and the email address in this instance does exist.
Regards
Leon Liebenberg
>>> Jörg Backschues<jbacksch-exim-users@???> 12/1/2010 11:44 AM >>>
Am 30.11.2010 09:05, schrieb Leon Liebenberg:
> I am running Exim 4.72 and we are doing callout verification. Mail
> being received that has been tagged with BATV is being rejected on our
> side because of the callouts.
There should be no problem with Exim's callback feature because Exim
uses the BATV signed e-mail address for callback.
So, please show us some logs.
IMHO only callback in combination with greylisting is a serious problem.
> I would like your suggestions on what is the best way to implement BATV
> on exim so that it can strip off the BATV tags and proceed with the
> sender verification. I do not want to tag messages leaving our domain
> with BATV.
Please consider that BATV tags are not standardized by now:
<
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/batv-tech/2008q2/000045.html>
--
Greetings
Jörg Backschues
###
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at
http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity.
###
