Hello, using 4.63:
in my RCPT ACL I've:
...
require message = Huh (sender)!
verify = sender/callout=random
require message = Huh (recipient)!
verify = recipient/callout=random
...
I expected exactly my message in the server response, nothing but my
message. But in the following examples you'll see that it's true only
for the recipient verification.
Now testing it with BAD SENDER:
# exiacl -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] -t [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**> /usr/sbin/exim -C /etc/exim4/exim4.conf -oMi 145.253.107.250 -bhc
172.20.1.8
LOG: no host name found for IP address 172.20.1.8
< 220 paff.bioz.tzdresden.de ESMTP Exim 4.63 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:40:52 +0100
> EHLO schlittermann.de
< 250-paff.bioz.tzdresden.de Hello schlittermann.de [172.20.1.8]
< 250-SIZE 52428800
< 250-PIPELINING
< 250-STARTTLS
< 250 HELP
> MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
< 250 OK
> RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] sender verify fail for <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] F=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rejected RCPT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: \
Sender verify failed
< 550-Verification failed for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
< 550-Previous (cached) callout verification failure
< 550 Huh (sender)!
Now testing it with good sender but BAD recipient:
# exiacl -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] -t [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**> /usr/sbin/exim -C /etc/exim4/exim4.conf -oMi 145.253.107.250 -bhc
172.20.1.8
LOG: no host name found for IP address 172.20.1.8
< 220 paff.bioz.tzdresden.de ESMTP Exim 4.63 Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:43:27 +0100
> EHLO schlittermann.de
< 250-paff.bioz.tzdresden.de Hello schlittermann.de [172.20.1.8]
< 250-SIZE 52428800
< 250-PIPELINING
< 250-STARTTLS
< 250 HELP
> MAIL FROM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
< 250 OK
> RCPT TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
LOG: H=(schlittermann.de) [172.20.1.8] F=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> rejected RCPT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: \
response to "RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" from mail.namos.de
[145.253.108.53] was: \
550 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown in
local recipient table
< 550 Huh (recpient)!
Is it a but or just my misunderstanding?
From a short look into acl.c, around line 1941, I get the feeling, that
it's really handled in a different way.
Best regards from Dresden
Viele Grüße aus Dresden
Heiko Schlittermann
--
SCHLITTERMANN.de ---------------------------- internet & unix support -
Heiko Schlittermann HS12-RIPE -----------------------------------------
gnupg encrypted messages are welcome - key ID: 48D0359B ---------------
gnupg fingerprint: 3061 CFBF 2D88 F034 E8D2 7E92 EE4E AC98 48D0 359B -
signature.asc
Description: Digital 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/
