W B Hacker wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 14 Jun 2011, at 12:50, W B Hacker wrote:
Is that true? I've not experienced it, in several years.
It might not be obvious *why* one's server was rejected - and need
not be an LBL.
Right, but it might be obvious *whether* my mail has been rejected.
..there is that, of course ...
;-)
But blaming .. or excusing .. a specific trigger FOR such rejection,
relies all too much on the 'rejector' providing specific and accurate
rejection message detail.
Hardly assured, that. Even if you are looking.
I am 'cc:' ing you primarily so that I can check my own logs...
Bill
.. having done so, confirmed that a unique-ID-specific
([email protected]) sender verification callout back to my server is
honoured at once.
Aside from needlessly spawning an extra child process at each end to
handle an extra smtp (partial) session, not a problem for your server OR
tahini (or for me either, of course).
No 'delay =' is imposed so long as the creds of the server making the
callout are clean and the recipient is valid .. and the caller's HELO
verifies ...
While a HELO mismatch is a non-fatal error here, the delay imposed can
send-off those both impatient and careless.
QED.
Or time-out a sender_verify callout..
..which was not its objective.
'..Law of unintended consequences' at work, masking the issue under
discussion.
One does wonder, however, if a similar side-effect could be a
contributing factor to the OP's '...failing sometimes'.
All it would take is a delay closer to his own wait time for a response,
plus the odd link/resource delay. Or NOT.
Policy otherwise not a factor.
Bill
--
韓家標
--
## List details at https://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/
