On 18 Oct 2006, at 13:42, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 17 October 2006 21:33:42 +0100 Andrew - Supernews > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Eiloart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Ian> 3. People using sender verification callouts. They seem to >> think >> Ian> it's as bad as sending email, >> >> Because ultimately it is. > > So, if I stopped doing callouts, and chose to bounce spam instead, > that > wouldn't be a backward step? You'd be no more unhappy for me to > fill your > mailboxes with bounced spam than you are about my callouts? >
You would not fill their mail boxes, the dsn would be rejected after rcpt to: so in fact the session would be indistinguishable from a callout. except you will probably retry. > > -- > Ian Eiloart > IT Services, University of Sussex > > -- > ## 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/ > -- ## 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/
