Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > Hello *, > > what I understand from SRS is: > > If I use SRS for outgoing messages, bounces to messages I sent should be > addressed to SRS-"encoded" recipients, not to real real recipients. > > Right? > > No I registered with SORBS, they asked for my mail address to send > confirmation request. I discovered that this request was sent with > empty sender (thus looking like a bounce). I I'd have SRS in place it > would be a problem, wouldn't it? > > Who is wrong here? Should SORBS use valid non-null sender addresses or > should I forget thinking about SRS? > > > [ In case SORBS is wrong - does anybody here know some folks from SORBS > to ask for a fix? ] >
If you'd ask for a personal advise, SORBS is nothing to be trusted as a blacklist. I personally don't think bounces should be allowed for an address that _never_ sends mail or has never sent a mail that require a bounce, while they still use that trick to send "legitimate" mails. By definition, a bounce is a response to a mail that has been sent from an address, not something that should be used as a sender for a fresh new mail. The latter just deserves to be blocked or discarded.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- ## 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/
