--On 15 September 2009 02:22:59 +0200 Andrew Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Indeed it is by design. If I get you right, if you get a NDN >> (none-delivery-notification, or for the discussion, any other type of >> message with empty sender, like out of office) which you can not >> delivery, you like to bounce that? That is a recipe for trouble, meaning >> you can play ping-pong all day long... Don't do it! > > I want to discourage administrators of remote mail systems that are using > me as a smarthost from sending these messages and if I direct the > delivery failure notifications at them they should at least be made > aware that they are generating these, which is a step in the right > direction (my queue remaining un-polluted is a happy side-effect). We see a similar problem, whereby auto-replies are sent by exim to non-deliverable addresses. Exim is replying to the "From:" header, not the envelope sender, and (correctly) using a null sender. I'm not so sure the auto-replying to the "From:" address is correct, but I think the auto-replies (vacation messages) aren't sent when the original envelope sender is empty. Very many of the undeliverable vacation messages that I see are for delivery to addresses like "nore...@...". Clearly the sender doesn't want auto-replies, but is not using any sensible way of discouraging them. In our case, meeting any of Exim's "if personal" test conditions would work. For example, and "Auto-submitted:" header might be suitable. > The ID they authenticate with will always be a mailbox I control, so I > would know for sure I can deliver mail there. > > Mailer in question handles authenticated SMTP relay only. > > -AL. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ -- ## 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/
