Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> W B Hacker<wbh@???> (Mon May 23 16:56:16 2011):
> (…)
>>
>> verify = sender morphs to: verify = sender_route
>>
>> (no longer possible to option a 'callout', timeout still optional)
>>
>>
>> verify = sender/callout morphs to: Verify = sender_contact
>>
>> (no longer possible to NOT do the callout, timeout still optional)
>>
>> Not sure if the FIRST form even has a place at the table so long as
>> we still have:
>>
>> verify = reverse_host_lookup
>
> I'm not sure - may be I'm confused - but, "verify = sender" checks
> the information from the envelope sender, while "verify =
> reverse_host_lookup" checks the IP the client system is connecting from.
>
> Thus, both options (sender (or call it sender_router)
> and reverse_host_lookup) can be useful.
>
>
Heiko,
I am WAY too tired to go grok the code just now, but I suspect you are
correct.
If so, then:
reverse_host_lookup or host_route_trace
and
reverse_sender_lookup or mail_from_trace
Might be more consistent.
BTW your server and mine were historically blocking each other by two
different types of those 'accidental' byproducts I mentioned.
Seems we have both made config changes, so I'll cc: you.
IF you get it, reply.
Bill
*your* use of it prevents me sending to you. I don't BL or block
sender callouts - just don't respond until OTHER tests have been passed
- by which time it is too late.
Conversely, MY rejection on the presence of 'ssl.
you 'ssl' in sever ID string does hereverse..
Bill
--
Ciào
Bill
韓家標
