Hi Dave,
I understand your frustrations dealing the the brain dead. What I do is
have a text file with a list of domains not to verify and that solves
the problem. You can also push sender verification down your list of
tests so you do less of it. For example, I do my blacklist tests,
whitelist tests, HELO test, other DNS based tests, etc. Then I do some
sender verification on what is left and I'm not getting any complaints
because the number of verification call outs are greatly reduced.
On 3/24/2011 7:50 AM, Dave Restall - System Administrator,,, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use exim to receive and process my emails - have done for years.
> I also use sender callouts - have done for years. Occasionally emails
> get rejected because they are sent from non-existent addresses and sender
> callouts don't like that.
>
> Recently plusnet (www.plus.net) (an ISP !!!) sent me some administrative
> emails that were rejected due to sender callouts, so - I raised a support
> call and asked them to fix their systems and change the envelope addresses
> to something sensible - I don't care what they change it to as long as
> it resolves to a valid address. After much toing and froing, I got the
> following back, basically they're telling me to whitelist their broken
> addresses because 'the system is currently working as it was designed'.
>
> I realise I'm not strictly sticking to the RFC's 'be liberal in what
> you accept' in this case but why should I whitelist for their brain dead
> configs ?
>
> Before I go and really bend their ear on why they shouldn't be sending
> emails with invalid addresses, and that I shouldn't really have to
> whitelist their addresses because how can I know what the next failing
> address will be if their systems are designed to be broken and that for
> an ISP to have broken systems is really unacceptable, is there anybody
> on the list that works for plusnet who can point me at the right email
> address for their mail admins so I can make an appeal to the right people
> instead of... ? I'm resisting adjectives here because I've worked for
> a lot of years in a support environment and I don't want to label the
> whole plusnet team.
>
> ISTR in one of the earlier RFC's that there was a 'should not send from a
> non-existent email address' and also a 'be conservative in what you send'
> but I can't find them in recent RFC's, have things changed so much that
> they can configure servers this way and ignore the problems ? (I don't
> assiduously read RFC's nowadays). What are the current RFC's regarding
> good mail server etiquette ?
>
> I must admit plusnet have normally been good in responding to queries
> and support calls - but I'm amazed at their attitude over this and it
> makes me wonder what other corners they are cutting in order to provide
> their service.
>
>> We are pleased to be able to inform you that a member of our Customer
>> Support Centre has now escalated your Question [number 40296690 ]
>> for further investigation.
>>
>> The following comment was added to the Question
>>
>> The Question 40296690 has been released from hold in the CSC - G pool
>> and returned to the customer
>>
>> Dear Mr Restall,
>>
>> This has now been reviewed, and the system is currently working as it
>> was designed.
>>
>> To resolve this issue, you are able to whitelist the addresses that you
>> have given to us previously or disable the callback verification.
>>
>> Please note that Callback verification has no effect if spammers spoof
>> real email addresses or use the null bounce address.
>>
>> Please take a look at the link below for further information on the
>> limitations:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callback_verification
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Kevin Mawson
>>
>> Read or respond to your Question -
>> http://portal.plus.net/my.html?action=questions
>>
>> IMPORTANT: Do not reply to this email, our Support Team can only deal
>> with inquiries through the Help Assistant
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Customer Support
>>
>> --
>> http://portal.plus.net
>>
>>
>> PlusNet plc
>> Registered Office: Internet House, 2 Tenter Street, Sheffield, S1 4BY
>> Registered in England no: 3279013
>> VAT registration number: 842254440
>>
> Sorry about the looong rant :(
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> D
> lists/exi,/users/2011-03-24.tx exim-users
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Dave Restall, Computer Nerd, Cyclist, Radio Amateur G4FCU, Bodger |
> | Mob +44 (0) 7973 831245 Skype: dave.restall Radio: G4FCU |
> | email : dave@??? Web : Not Ready Yet :-( |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity |
> | of play. |
> | -- Kirk, "Shore Leave", stardate 3025.8 |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
