On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Greg A. Woods wrote: > If you think blocking SMTP transactions simply because they arrive with > an empty return path is the solution to any problem then you're using > the wrong protocol from the get go.
Wait a minute. Let's step back a bit here. I don't think anybody ever said that. You said, if I recall correctly, something to the effect that "Exim should not be able to apply the test 'is the sender of this message empty?'". I and other people are arguing against that proposition. What you do after passing that test is a different matter. As somebody pointed out, one of the things you could do is "always accept, no matter what". -- Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714. Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book -- ## 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/
