I'm having some trouble with sender callout verification rejecting VERP
messages from various Google applications. I have an ACL that looks like
this

  deny !verify = sender/callout

which is performing the callout check. However, it appears to be
downcasing the address before doing callout, which is causing unintended
failures. Here's an example with a real VERP address that has attempted
to deliver to us:

$ telnet 82.211.77.57 25
Trying 82.211.77.57...
Connected to uh.arachsys.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 uh.arachsys.com ESMTP Exim 4.68 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:25:44 +0100
HELO arachsys.demon.co.uk
250 uh.arachsys.com Hello arachsys.demon.co.uk [83.104.159.199]
MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
250 OK
RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
550-Verification failed for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
550-Called:   64.233.167.14
550-Sent:     RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
550-Response: 550 5.1.1 No such user x46si1487200pyg
550 Sender verify failed
421 uh.arachsys.com: SMTP command timeout - closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.

Performing the verification steps manually myself:

  $ telnet 64.233.167.14 25
  Trying 64.233.167.14...
  Connected to 64.233.167.14.
  Escape character is '^]'.
  220 mx.google.com ESMTP x46si1490466pyg
  HELO arachsys.demon.co.uk
  250 mx.google.com at your service
  MAIL FROM:<>
  250 2.1.0 OK
  RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  250 2.1.5 OK

but if I downcase the recipient address in the same way it appears from
the 550 that Exim is:-

  [...]
  RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  550 5.1.1 No such user x46si1490466pyg

I've tried both adding control=caseful_local_part to the ACL and (just in
case---although I can't see that it should have any effect!)
caseful_local_part to our remote SMTP router without success. Is there a
standard way to configure the callback not to downcase the address before
verification?

Cheers,

Chris.

-- 
## 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/

Reply via email to