Alastair Campbell wrote: >> I'd use only the first one. > Ok, thanks. I'll look up acl_smtp_data in the Exim docs to get my > bearing, and hopefully find a way of testing it before it becomes active.
Oh, sorry, braino (it was way too late), I meant the second one, i.e. in acl_check_rcpt, because bounces get rejected at an earlier stage and some broken MTAs may not stop sending on 5xx after DATA phase. OTOH, some broken MTAs might use something different than <> for bounces (you never know...), but that's quite uncommon, I think. You could use both ACL stanzas, but the effect is minimal and the filtering on the subject has a certain potential for false positives, so I think it wouldn't make things better. >> As already pointed out: It's time to get rid of the catchall. >> It's bad karma ;) > I'm afraid it's too late, I've used it over the last 5 years, and didn't > keep track of all the addresses used. Same here. I think it's not _that_ bad, but from todays view I'd rather use [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/
