Marc Perkel wrote: > ...
>>> >>> >> I used it for sender verification, not for recipient verification. There >> is a continuous debate about this kind of verification when there is a >> massive joe job. So this is a dilemma if you wish to verify every each >> address, you should accept being blacklisted. I think sender >> verification should only be used when the mail is already a spam suspect. >> >> If you use it for recipient verification, that generally means you are >> an MX gateway for some domains and that they should trust you if they >> are renting your services. If domains you are an MX for blacklist you or >> make you blacklisted, they just should fix their configuration. >> >> >> > > I run a front end spam filtering service. To reduce sender verification > I do recipient verification first. The idea being that if the recipient > fails then I need not verify the sender. But some of my customers will > accept anything so I end up doing sender verification on every message > for them. > > So - my original thinking as if the customer accepted any address I > wouldn't do sender verification for them. > > But - this random thing looks very interesting. I can see how it would > prevent a lot of lookups if the sender accepted random addresses. But > would it result in additional callouts if the sender does NOT accept > random addresses. Actually a recipient callout costs less than accepting the whole data and trying to deliver it. > > Ideally if the random call failed then Exim should remember that to and > not make a new random call the next time. The docs say that it remembers > if the random call suceded, but will it remember if it fails? If it fails, I think it will still retry a random callout the next time.
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/
