On Mon, 15 May 2006, John W. Baxter wrote: > On 5/15/06 3:12 AM, "Alastair Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > As part of my long-running campaign to get rid of the catchall in my > domain, I have now changed the settings so that catchall mail goes > to the cleverly named "invalid" mailbox (which I read once or twice > a week in an MUA devoted to the purpose).
Seems to me there's two issues here. One is mail (maybe bona fide) to the catchall addresses which A.C was *previously* using (but presumably is no longer using). The other is bounces (mostly the result of misguided reactions to spam with faked sender addresses). Since these legacy addresses are presumably no longer being used for sending out mail, I don't see why A.C can't immediately start rejecting bounces to those addresses. He's hardly going to get a genuine bounce relating to a mail which e.g he sent last year, is he? It *might* have to be done with a little care, depending on whether he wants to respond affirmatively to callouts for those obsolescent addresses. My gut reaction is that I'd prefer to repudiate obsolescent addresses being tested by callouts, even if I was willing to accept mail (which could well be bona fide) with a non-null envelope sender addressed to that obsolescent address. This would also mean that third parties who validate dubious mail by attempting a callout on the purported envelope sender would be able to reject faked senders on the spot, which is good (I'm no fan of *blanket* callouts to validate sender addresses, but when things look dubious I still reckon they can be a handy extra string to the bow). But maybe there's some reason for still declaring these addresses valid in response to callout, in which case you'd need to return affirmative responses to such "bounces" at the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO phases (you can't, after all, in these phases tell the difference between a callout and a "real bounce"), but you'd then return 5xx at the DATA phase. regards -- ## 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/
