rcpt_ok denysoft_greylisting postmaster addrtest nulsendr nulme

[Bob]

#rcpt_ok

my $host = lc $recipient->host;
$host = $self->qp->config("me")

What? $host="calling_all_elvis"? Am I not seeing my $host's scope
or was same $host assigned a value, then assigned a different value?

Are we trapping an empty or non-existent "me" file, which is IP,
rather than for a null sender to postmaster?

if ($host eq "" && (lc $user eq "postmaster" || lc $user eq "abuse"));

# Let's try this, I'm learning perl--

#test
$host="";
$user="postmaster";
   if ($host eq "" && (lc $user eq "postmaster" || lc $user eq "abuse"));
print &joe_ok( $recipient ) ;
#syntax error at /tmp/levenshtein line 67, near ");"
#Execution of /tmp/levenshtein aborted due to compilation errors.

#test
$host="";
$user="postmaster";
if ($host eq "" && (lc $user eq "postmaster" || lc $user eq "abuse")){
print &joe_ok( $recipient ) ;}

#denysoft_greylisting
   # Deny here (per-rcpt) unless this is a <> sender, for smtp probes
   return DENYSOFT, $msg if $sender->address;

...for all addresses when null sender, decline, but perhaps
lurk about in alley near back door(lookup notes at data-post,
unto the fourth generation). I can read that. rcpt_ok I don't
get.

Are all rfc-ignorant tests to postmaster@ and abuse@, all
bounce tests, and all address tests, done from a null sender?

If the sender is not null, and user non-existent, would it
be best to deny at rcpt, data, or data-post, as far as not
feigning rfc-ignorance?

-Bob