On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:30 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:00 PM, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
Address verification callbacks take various forms, but the way
exim does it by default is to attempt to start a DSN delivery to
the address and if the RCPT TO is accepted it is affirmative. It
is not usually use VRFY. Most address verification is done by
attempting to start some sort of delivery to the address.
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 12:00 -0400, Marcelo Maraboli wrote:
I agree..... callbacks are not enough, you can reach a
false conclusion, that´s why I use SPF along with callbacks...
on the same message, my MX concludes:
"you are sending email "from [EMAIL PROTECTED]", but shire.net
says YOUR IP address is not allowed to send email on behalf
of that domain, therefore YOU ARE FAKE/FORGED" ..---> reject
I'm not sure what you mean by callbacks but if that involves
mx.example.com and trying to figure out if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is
a valid address go ahead. I would consider a mailserver that answers
that question a security risk as it is freely giving away
about your domain without notifying you. For a long time my mx
would answer any such question in the affirmative regardless of
or not the mail account existed.
I'm assuming that DSN is Delivery Service Notification
or return receipt.
If it is or if it somehow relies on the ability to deliver a
message via smtp to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then I don't see how it prevents
If the mail says it is from [EMAIL PROTECTED] but I cannot send a
DSN to [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the account is most likely bogus
sender and is refused. It works wonders for spam.
DSN has a specific definition -- look in the RFCs as I don't remember
which RFC it is offhand. But you are supposed to always accept a DSN
from <> as part of the RFCs
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
Your Web App and Email hosting provider
chad at shire.net
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"