Thomas Hochstein wrote: > W B Hacker schrieb: > >>>> 2010-09-27 11:19:32 H=domain.com [123.123.123.123]:56505 >>>> I=[234.234.234]:25 sender verify fail for <[email protected]>: response >>>> to "MAIL FROM:<>" from a.mx.domain.com [217.153.18.125] was: 550 5.5.0 >>>> Sender domain is empty. > [...] >> If the text is correct, it didn't complain that the $local_part was empty. >> >> It said the sender *domain* was empty. > > That doesn't matter, does it? With an empty sender ("<>"), local part > _and_ domain part of the sender are empty.
True. Of course.. ignore my comment. > >> That's either a misleading error message, or whole 'nuther issue..... > > I don't think so. > > -thh > ACK. What else *would* they say... (also copying you 'direct', so we can see what OUR servers see ...) I dont want to re-open the 'war' as to whether sender_verify callouts to any but your own server pool are/are not a good idea, but HAVE tried them and found they added significant pain for ZERO gain. ... in MY environment, anyway. YMMV, 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/
