> The main > argument here is that a valid reason to reject all <> is for > mailboxes/domains that don't send mail -- so when your callout fails > and you reject the message its all good.
Yes, this may be true for the envelope sender callouts (as far as I can see). But at the last time we see configurations which have special return-path-addresses (SPF config and so on). These systems may don't accept the null-reverse-path for their header senders (i.e. the normal user mailboxes), cause they never use their normal mail addresses in the return-path. Thats a very sophisticated mail setup and it breaks our poor header sender callouts. Just these callouts caught so much spam in the past. ;-( - oliver -- ## 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/
