On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:45:17AM +0100, Matthew Newton said: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:07:19AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > Greg A. Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > An extremely large number of domains fronted by Exim are now refusing > > > > bounce messages > > > > If the software implementing the protocol cannot do so with minium > > correctness despite the best efforts of the admin to confound it, > > i.e. if that software cannot at least make it _VERY_ difficult for its > > admin to break key core aspects of the protocol, such as _ERROR_ > > _HANDLING_, then that software is buggy and perhaps even broken by > > design. > > There is nothing wrong with exim. It is perfectly permissible to block > bounce messages in some circumstances, such as when that particular > account never sends mail, or if the server is outgoing only (so the > bounces should return by a different server). I added blocks for two > accounts here the other day that were receiving bogus bounces, purely > because they never send any mail.
I also had a need to reject bounce messages from a certain host... Someone signed up for a high-volume mailing list and their server was bouncing messages to the "From:" header addresses... Talk about clueless! No, Exim should NOT be made more difficult to configure. Shunning hosts with improperly configured mail servers is a much better solution. Anyone rejecting all bounce messages has deliberatly configured their server to do so. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
