On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > > On a scale from 0 to 100, I am at 40 - 50 would be needed to accept > > the patch. Arguments please ;) > > Well, all I can say is that we have to keep in mind that delaying the checks > untill after RCPT is just a hack to support broken implementations.
These broken implementations are in extremely wide use, though, and and users would click away an error message box anyway. Bouncing such messages seems the better idea for me. > Although this is a hack that is usualy desireable, it's still a > hack, and IMHO we should encourage users who know what they're doing > to disable it. > > As for distinguishing which users really know what they're doing, I > think the warning message in the docs is reasonably enough. If after > reading it they still want to enable it, any trouble they may get is > entirely their problem :) I'd like to refrain from having just one more macro at this place. Probably, it might be acceptable to do early recipient verification for messages that have neither been delivered authenticated nor delivered from a host that we relay from. Depending on how ugly this configuration gets, this might be acceptable as a default. I'd like to hear some comments from exim-users first though. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
