On 18 Oct 2006, at 17:06, 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? > > We don't do callouts in particular or 'random' anything in general ... > unless Bushmill's malt is involved... >
You were complaining that you received a randomized callout, _Given_ that someone has decided to do callouts the random option is a good idea. It annoys you so I wondered if the negative result is cached, at least. VIZ >>> There *were no* other connections in our logs to that IP OR >>> hostname OR even >>> <domain>.<tld> anywhere near the same day, so a sender verify it >>> certainly was NOT. >>> >>> But creative garbage of that sort is what DOES make support hard >>> for sender >>> verification hard to justify. >>> >>> Meanwhile, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and >>> smells of duck >>> feces, we will call it a duck and blacklist the source like any >>> other dictionary >>> attack source. >>> >>> Absent any time-related connections, how should one expect to >>> spot the difference? > 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/ > -- ## 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/
