On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:14 +0100, Mike Cardwell wrote: > Another issue that I forgot to bring up. If you do batv verification in > the rcpt acl, you're going to end up preventing other systems from doing > callouts in certain circumstances. I agree these will be rare, but would > it be better to do the following: > > 1.) In the rcpt acl defer each recipient after the first if the sender > is null. > 2.) Do the batv validation in the pre-data acl using "$recipients" > instead of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > That way you don't risk fudging peoples callouts? I can't see any cons > to this...
1. is exactly what I ended up doing for exactly the same reason. Watching my logs for a bit after showed only junk (and DNS Report's mail server tests) triggering the more than one RCPT after a MAIL FROM:<>. 2. I also delayed my BATV rejection until after the RCPT ACL. I actually ended up waiting until the DATA ACL, but pre-DATA would also be fine. I was just worried about tripping up any MTA by giving a 500 to the DATA command, but really the multiple RCPT in a DSN mail just doesn't happen with good mail, so trip away. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
