>>> Some MUAs are sloppy and don't tell me who the bad recipient is when >>> they get bad news after RCPT TO:. Thus, I don't know which of >>> >>> >> For exactly that reason, I don't do any rejection at RCPT TO level for >> MUAs. >> > Yep, what he said. Essentially, for MUA submissions, don't reject at ACL > time and instead let the routers generate a bounce instead. >
I appreciate your thinking, but I don't agree with it. It seems a bit extreme just for overcoming this one little problem in Exim (which is easily worked around 98% of the time with the method I described). If you accept anything from an MUA, you get some undesirable usability problems: 1. It can take a short time for the user to see the bounce (for example, if they poll for new messages every 10 minutes). That's too bad for someone who sends a message and then heads out the door. 2. If I send a message to 5 recipients and 1 of them is bad, 4 people will get a message with a bad recipient in the headers. When they reply, they'll get rejections or bounces. It's subjective, but I think most people would like the chance to correct a bad address before the message goes to the others. Granted, these things can still occur even with recipient checking, but why not handled the cases that can be caught? -- ## 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/
