Renaud Allard wrote: > > W B Hacker wrote: > > >>Our error messages *might not* be specific if the nature of our tests turned >>up >>things that classified the source as a probable spammer or 'probe'. >> >>Your specific server had been so classified here 27 September 2006 for >>sending >>to a non-existent address that was clearly intentionally 'constructed', not a >>mis-spelling of a valid user. > > > You probably mean generated by a rule like that > !verify = sender/callout=20s,defer_ok,random > > ohh, callouts again :)
'au contraire' - we handle *proper* callouts all day long. We even take 'postmaster@<our IP> as an IP-literal, as the RFC requires such, though we don't *send* that way, so it is purely a nod to the RFC's. But a *proper* sender-verify is either addressed to the 'postmaster' or to the alegedly-valid user currently attempting a send. As we have no such user as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This was neither.... .. now 'Irish Alzheimers' being what it, is my 'wetware' may have forgotten that I perhaps *invited* you to test... If so, you at least got a demo of what paranoid servers can do... Wait til *next* week when the PostgreSQL AI rules kick in.. No need for 'honeypots' All we care about is the traffic that hits *our* servers. Any of them. ;-) Bill -- ## 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/
