David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 12:37 +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> If you're going to block messages with no sender, then you should do this >> in the DATA ACL, otherwise you'll be unable to deliver email to sites that >> use sender verification callouts. > > Um, I don't agree with that. Rather, I'd say "If you're going to block > messages with no sender, then YOU ARE A BLOODY IDIOT AND SHOULD > IMMEDIATELY STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD BEFORE YOU DO ANY MORE DAMAGE." > > Thankfully, Jan wasn't trying to do that. >
LOL! Might be better to say that blocking empty-sender arrivals needs to be done with care. And tested. - Quite legitimate to sniff them to insure they are not backscatter spam attempts. No one loves an MTA that participates in that game, and it isn't hard to avoid. - a 'good idea' to accept the legitimate ones for postmaster@, hostmaster@, abuse@, even webmaster@ by IP-literal as well as by <domain>.<tld> even if you accept no OTHER traffic by IP-literal. Sometimes DNS and such go pear-shaped and an IP is all a helpful admin has to let you know you have - or are creating - a problem. Many examples here in archives.... Bill -- ## 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/
