On 2017-07-20 09:18, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, admin@??? wrote: > > > https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2137 > > > > Dreas van Donselaar <dreas@???> changed: > > > > > > --- Comment #5 from Dreas van Donselaar <dreas@???> --- > > One more attempt from my side to get this resolved upstream (we prefer avoiding > > patches where possible). > > > If the above is not convincing (which I presume so as I'm not an expert and > > likely am just repeating the others ;)), my other argument would be that if > > this change from previous Exim versions was intentional you would have expected > > it to be shown in the changelog? > > >
Hi Andrew, Unfortunately no, it's not the same problem as in #2147. Just to clear up the differences :), in #2137 we've seen the following scenario: - We attempt a verification of the recipient - The random catch all check is being made, but the destination returns a 4XX response instead of 5XX - Exim doesn't continue with the the verification of the actual recipient, which is in fact valid. As Dreas said there are quite some cases (e.g. migrating users) were a 4XX response for an invalid recipient will be returned, and with the change in the behavior in 4.89, valid recipients would have seen sudden temp rejections. In #2147 we've seen a different scenario: - We attempt a verification of the recipient (cold cache) - The random catch all check is being made, destination returns a 2XX - Exim defers the callout verification, temporarily rejecting the recipient, but still writes random=accept in the cache - We attempt a verification of the recipient (hot cache) - Recipient is accepted Regards, Alex -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
