On 31/03/06, Jeremy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Bowyer wrote: > >>>We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary > >>>destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time, > >>>because it can deliver a bounce to the known sender if it's unable to > >>>deliver a message. > >> > >>Which known sender would this be? > > > > > > The one which it authenticated, or which an upstream trusted MTA > > authenticated. It's an outbound relay for a known community of users. > > Ah, sorry; first time I've seen authentication mentioned. > The original just said "accepting anything from a list of > known IPs". > > With auth, yes, accept-then-bounce is permissable (but still > suboptimal, I think. I prefer, as a user, an instant error > to my mistyping a destination address. As a networking engineer > I prefer the fewer number of connections).
Unfortunately, not all MUAs are able to deliver a good user experience when a recipient is rejected by the MSA, especially when a message has multiple recipients. For that reason, I prefer accept-then-bounce in these circumstances. It also gives the user something persistant to read, keep, and to forward to the helpdesk for support. A transient dialogue box containing a reject message may be suitable for technical users but is less so for the non-technical. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ## 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/
