right - nevermind. Christopher Meadors wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote: > >> In addition to all the standard ACLs I'd like to suggest a headers acl >> that would run at the blank line between the headers and the message. >> That way I can take action without having to wait for all the data to be >> transfered. >> > What action would you be taking? No client will accept a response at > that point. So only two of the ACL verbs would be valid, "accept" to > keep on going and "drop", to just disconnect the sender. Dropping > malware connections may be OK, but if there is a chance that the other > end is a real mail server it would amount to confusion as to why the > connection went away without any sort of error message. The "drop" verb > does still offer an error line before closing the connection; that > wouldn't be possible here. > > If you notice all the ACLs are triggered by the SMTP conversation. They > allow the admin to tailor Exim's responses when it is time to give a > reply to the sender. There is nothing for the server to do during the > DATA portion except sit and listen. > >
-- ## 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/
