On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Oliver Egginger wrote: [> I wrote, but Oliver snipped the attribution:] >> Which means, to anyone who understands English, that you have to have a >> pretty good reason to emit null-reverse-path mail for any reason other >> than the standards-track RFC (all of which, to my knowledge, are based on >> reverse paths of incoming messages). > It's advisable to do sender callouts with a null-reverse-path. > At the moment we do sender callouts and reject every message which can't > be verified by a callout. But by reading this thread I arrive at the > conclusion that I'll better disable all denies which are based on sender > callouts.
One could argue that it's not advisable to do sender callouts at all. However, the sender callout is triggered by the return-path of an incoming message. Which gets me back to my point. Cheers MBM -- Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://colondot.net/ (Please use this address to reply) -- ## 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/
