On Sunday 05 February 2006 21:38, Marc Sherman wrote:
Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Il 5 Feb 2006 alle 16:21 Marc Sherman immise in rete
Many servers will simply drop your traffic silently, or quarantine
it.
I think this would break the rules ... one is free to not accept a
message, but
Adam Funk wrote:
I take your point, but I do think there is a bit of hypocrisy floating
around here on this issue: people condemn what Daevid and I want as
*wrong* -- even though I genuinely don't think it violates the RFC -- but
condone (at least tacitly) violations on the receiving end.
On Monday 06 February 2006 10:52, Philip Hazel wrote:
This WishList suggestion is impossible to implement. Control cannot be
given back to the routers after Exim has entered the transport phase.
Remember: all the routing happens before any of the transporting.
Fallback hosts would be the only
Adam Funk wrote:
I take your point, but I do think there is a bit of hypocrisy floating
around here on this issue: people condemn what Daevid and I want as
*wrong* -- even though I genuinely don't think it violates the RFC -- but
condone (at least tacitly) violations on the receiving end.
Adam Funk wrote:
The problem that Daevid and I have had is that (1) our Exim bounces a
message because you (for example) reject it because we're on a blacklist;
(2) so we have to add that domain to the list of smarthosted destinations
-- which is what you want us to do, right? -- then
Il 5 Feb 2006 alle 16:21 Marc Sherman immise in rete
Many servers will simply drop your traffic silently, or quarantine it.
I think this would break the rules ... one is free to not accept a message,
but once accepted have to be delivered or bounced.
--
Leonardo Boselli
Nucleo Informatico e
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Il 5 Feb 2006 alle 16:21 Marc Sherman immise in rete
Many servers will simply drop your traffic silently, or quarantine it.
I think this would break the rules ... one is free to not accept a message,
but once accepted have to be delivered or
Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Il 5 Feb 2006 alle 16:21 Marc Sherman immise in rete
Many servers will simply drop your traffic silently, or quarantine it.
I think this would break the rules ... one is free to not accept a message,
but once accepted have to be delivered or bounced.
I'm not saying
Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose for the wishlist a router option that would allow Exim to pass
on to the next router if the text accompanying a 5yz error matches a
specified regexp. This would provide the function that Daevid and I (and
others) have enquired about: trying to
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:39:45AM +0100, Stanislaw Halik said:
Adam Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose for the wishlist a router option that would allow Exim to
pass on to the next router if the text accompanying a 5yz error
matches a specified regexp. This would provide the function
What I'd like to do is make it so that Exim tries 'normal'
delivery, and
if that fails, then automatically route the same message through
Outbound.
... why this cannot work reliably.
And Exim cannot do it (AFAIK).
I don't see why it can't do it? If Exim tries to connect directly, then
Daevid Vincent wrote:
And Exim cannot do it (AFAIK).
I don't see why it can't do it? If Exim tries to connect directly, then it
First, because Exim is not programmed to do it. A permanent error means
the message is not deliverable.
Second, if the message gets discarded at the receiving site,
I have the DynDNS Outbound service that has worked miracles for getting out
of RBL hell. The issue is that I only am allowed 600 messages / day. With
just a few users, this is rapidly being used up.
I know next nothing about exim to be honest, but I have figured out enough
to get Exim (v4.54 on
13 matches
Mail list logo
