Philip Hazel wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Daniel Tiefnig wrote: > >> Hmm, I posted a similar problem to this list, some(...) time ago: >> http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/exim-users/Week-of-Mon-20060501/msg00042.html > > Was that the problem that was supposed to be fixed by this change in > 4.64? > > PH/36 [...]
Hmm, it would solve that special case with greylisting, yes. But I think there may still be a more general problem, with exim generating a permanent error due to the (long-lasting) 4xx reply from the primary MX, without trying the (so called "working") secondary MX if there is one. I'm not sure though, whether this really is a bug, or one may call it a feature. Does it make sense to deliver to the 2nd MX if we know the 1st MX does not accept mail for the address? Or better: do we know enough about the setup of the target MX system to make a reasonable decision? I don't think so. lg, daniel -- ## 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/
