On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 08:02 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > > mail from: <> > > 250 Ok > > rcpt to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 450 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: Greylisted for 300 > > seconds (see http://...) > > > > The above is only one of many false-positives.
'many'? Poor greylisting implementations (at RCPT instead of DATA time) do interact badly with sender verification callouts sometimes -- but the message should get through after it's retried. When they attempt to resend the message from [EMAIL PROTECTED], once the 300 seconds has elapsed, it should get through. > The Exim MLM on sesame, for example fails sender verify at 'recipient', yet > is > certainly on MY list of 'good guys'. What address? [EMAIL PROTECTED] That fails sender verification because it's never used as an SMTP reverse-path in valid mail. It's the same with the address '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. In both cases, sender verification does exactly the right thing. Using sender verification as an all-or-nothing test, and either rejecting or deferring (as in the above-quoted example) is something that works well for many people. The only time it breaks is when people are sending you messages that you can't send bounces for -- which means you're likely not to be able to reply either. So they'll _think_ that they managed to communicate, but in fact you can't get back to them. It's better, in most of those cases, for the mail never to leave their own system. That way they know they've broken it. Btw, your MUA is misbehaving -- your replies have neither In-Reply-To: nor References: headers, so they're not associated with the thread to which you replied. Please could you fix that so that you don't break the threading on the list? -- dwmw2 -- ## 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/
