On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote: > > One should not be using non-null envelope sender addresses on this > kind of transaction to an arbitrary MTA. That risks creating mail > loops - and just imagine what happens when they decide to verify your > envelope sender address by calling _you_ out, using a non-null > envelope sender, and you then call that envelope sender out to check > it, and so on...
That problem is quite easy to avoid. > If the remote host repudiates a transaction that has a null envelope > sender, then it's a matter of policy what you then decide to do about > it. Our policy is to treat servers that reject bounces as stupid rather than malicious, and therefore give them the benefit of the doubt. However maintaining the whitelist is a time sink and so I'm going to implement something that requires less effort. Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\ N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\ \N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}} -- ## 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/
