On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 13:55 +0200, Matthias Waffenschmidt wrote: > > That problem is fixed in Exim -- I don't really see much need for > > anything like XFORWARD.
I think I'm missing part of the big picture here. I see those specific possibilities, but I don't actually see how they'd fit in to a sane system architecture. > You could for example deny at recipient time (recipients selectively) > instead of having only one deny/accept option after data. So you have one dumb MTA which accepts mail and then tries to forward it to a second, using XFORWARD, and the _second_ then has the option on rejecting individual recipients that the _first_ should have rejected in the first place? And the first then has to bounce them? > But the most important point IMO is if callouts would send this > information via XFORWARD, because there currently is no way of > transfer such kind of data to MTA2 (as there is no data transferred). So you have one dumb MTA which does callouts to the second _before_ accepting the mail? Either way, I'm not really sure why you'd do any of this. -- dwmw2 -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
