On Sun, 28 Apr 2024, Andreas Metzler via Exim-users wrote:
> On 2024-04-28 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@???> wrote:
>> On 28/04/2024 06:05, Andreas Metzler via Exim-users wrote:
>>> The router fails all bounces where
>>> inbound_srs{} fails, not only the ones that "look SRS'd".
>
>> It assumes that you really are SRS'ing all outbounds, therefore
>> any bounce not SRS (in addition to those with bad SRS) is
>> de-facto not valid.
>
>> If the "all outbounds" does not hold in your configuration
>> then you would need more complexity for this element.
>
> Hello,
>
> There is progress. ;-)
>
> inbound_srs_failure only handles addresses with valid SRS-syntax (That
> is what I missed before.) that have not been grabbed by inbound_srs,
> i.e. they have a wrong checksum or fail the timestamp < 10 day check.
> These message are rejected with a nice error message.
>
> So afaiui the whole point of this router is to produce a nice error
> instead of a generic "Unrouteable address".
That was my guess too.
> - Does this make sense?
When SPF/SRS came out there was concern that SRS had a relay attack,
so showing SRS errors separately would have been desired.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
andrew@???
--
## subscription configuration (requires account):
##
https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/
## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account):
## exim-users-unsubscribe@???
## Exim details at
http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list -
http://wiki.exim.org/
