On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:04 +0000, Peter Bowyer wrote: > Correct. I think Marcus's suggestion of a non-null but > reserved-for-the-purpose sender to use in callouts might work well, > though. Force an 'accept' on it when you see it as a recipient, but > reject after data if anything gets that far. > > Of course this is bending the orginal purpose of sender callouts - > which is to find out, before accepting responsibility for a message, > if we would be able to send a DSN back if we needed to.
indeed, and it will break sites using BATV, since <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is *only* valid as a recipient when the sender is <>. attempts to send e-mail to such an address from a normal (ie. non-empty) address will be rejected. why would you use anything other than <> for sender callouts? -- Kjetil T. -- ## 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/
