[ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 09:45:17 (+0100), Matthew Newton wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> There is nothing wrong with exim.
I think there is. Exim obviously makes it far too trivial to block all
_valid_ bounces. I know several other mailers that don't make it so
trivial to block _valid_ bounces.
> 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.
Well those were not _valid_ bounces now were they.
Those kinds of restrictions don't have to be implemented as sender
address ACLs either -- but could be done as recipient checks and/or
perhaps content filters.
> The most important thing is that the default configuration Exim comes
> with does not do silly things. This is already the case.
Just to be clear, I never argued that it did.
It turns out the folks at lunarpages.com barely know they run Exim as
they use a hosting management product called cPanel (www.cpanel.net)
which generates their exim.conf for them, and it doesn't seem to offer
them any way to accept bounce messages. Even its feature to whitelist a
given sender doesn't work.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## 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/
