--- On Tue, 3/26/13, Steffen Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote: > > used to test the sender's address for validity as a > return address. If it were to be limited to servers > under one's control and enforced as such, the routine would > have to obtain the recipient's MX-RRset internally and test > all higher priority MTAs; thus it would not need the remote > host address parameter. It would determine which host > in the MX-RRset it is running on based on the macro > variables passed in via the milter interface. > > I don't agree, using the MX is necessary for external > addresses, but for internal ones, esp. if the server does > not relay many domains, which are managed by others, one > usually knows the correct _internal_ maildrop host, which > has probably no MX at all. At least one saves the DNS > requests.
You may not agree but that is what the function is for per the author. I agree that there are better ways (e.g. LDAP database) to do this than to fake an SMTP transaction, aborting just before the DATA phase. When I first saw this function years ago, I thought that its purpose was to make callbacks to the sender's mailbox to test reverse deliverability, not to exclusively test the primary MX's acceptability of the message from a secondary. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
