Quoting Heiko Schlittermann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > what I understand from SRS is: > If I use SRS for outgoing messages, bounces to messages I sent should be > addressed to SRS-"encoded" recipients, not to real real recipients.
In my honest opinion, bounces should always go to the envelope sender address. E.g. the one specified at SMTP time, the one you've verified to have MX-records using verify = sender. A DSN originates from a null sender to stop loops, normal email should (again in my honest opinion) never be sent from a null sender address. So i drop every DSN to addresses that are 'protected' by SRS and that doesn't meet my SRS policy. > Who is wrong here? Should SORBS use valid non-null sender addresses or > should I forget thinking about SRS? I'd say SORBS. > [ In case SORBS is wrong - does anybody here know some folks from SORBS > to ask for a fix? ] Better would be to implement a whitelist in your SRS-check, like i did. You'll find it hard to convince people to change their setup because you have a problem. I can whielist certain hosts so they pass the test. In my case it was necessary because of broken MTA's doing callouts using null sender address where they should've used [EMAIL PROTECTED] F.e. the mysql mailinglistserver does that. -Sander -- | Eat well, stay fit, die anyway. | 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8 9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
