David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 22:06 +0800, W B Hacker wrote: > >>Stuart Gall wrote: >> >> >>>Hello >>>Is the random callout negative reply cached so that in future >>>callouts only the sender is checked ? >>>Which cache ? >>> >>> >>>Stuart. >>> >> >>Dunno what you mean. Wrong thread maybe? > > > No, it makes perfect sense. I suspect you're now being deliberately > obtuse.
Thread title has my domain.tld. Started over a blacklisting message used here. As pointed out we do not DO callouts, hence no 'negative reply'. That would have to do with whomever did do such a callout at the other end. Now if the question is in regard to the blacklisting, there are several. The one the OP had gotten into was non-expiring, or more realistically, I manually clean entries out of it every six to twelve months if the auto-DB has no new hits. > > However, I don't know the answer (at least not without looking at the > source or documentation as Stuart could have done too) so I didn't > respond. > > I don't mind that part - but the question iself did not seen to relate to previous discussion thread here, and *DID* seem closer to another thread currently running where there is a multi-way piss-up over the value/lack therof of callouts in the broader sense, and whom should stand the CPU cycles and b/w being 'stolen', etc. ad nauseum. 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/
