On 24 Jun 2005, at 11:20, Greg A. Woods wrote:
this sentence:
However What I've been trying to get across here is that the language
for expressing ACLs on sender addresses should not allow the admin to
specify the null return-path sender address in the first place, or
else
never allow transactions with a null return-path to be presented to
ACLs.
is somehow in contradiction with the next one:
The null return path MUST be treated specially since its unique status
is, and always has been, a primary requirement for error handling
in the
SMTP protocol specification and the Internet Host Requirements
STANDARD.
I say somehow because what you propose would indeed mean that it is
treated differently from other addresses, but this difference would
mean that ACLs would not be able to treat it specially.
Indeed it *is* treated specially in Exim, *because* I can distinguish
it from all the other addresses.
If I could not, how would my ACL be able to *not* apply delays on
sender callouts, for instance?
Giuliano
--
## 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/
