Renaud Allard wrote: > Marc Perkel wrote: > > ... > > >>>> >>>> >>> I used it for sender verification, not for recipient verification. There >>> is a continuous debate about this kind of verification when there is a >>> massive joe job. So this is a dilemma if you wish to verify every each >>> address, you should accept being blacklisted. I think sender >>> verification should only be used when the mail is already a spam suspect. >>> >>> If you use it for recipient verification, that generally means you are >>> an MX gateway for some domains and that they should trust you if they >>> are renting your services. If domains you are an MX for blacklist you or >>> make you blacklisted, they just should fix their configuration. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I run a front end spam filtering service. To reduce sender verification >> I do recipient verification first. The idea being that if the recipient >> fails then I need not verify the sender. But some of my customers will >> accept anything so I end up doing sender verification on every message >> for them. >> >> So - my original thinking as if the customer accepted any address I >> wouldn't do sender verification for them. >> >> But - this random thing looks very interesting. I can see how it would >> prevent a lot of lookups if the sender accepted random addresses. But >> would it result in additional callouts if the sender does NOT accept >> random addresses. >> > > Actually a recipient callout costs less than accepting the whole data > and trying to deliver it. > > >> Ideally if the random call failed then Exim should remember that to and >> not make a new random call the next time. The docs say that it remembers >> if the random call suceded, but will it remember if it fails? >> > > If it fails, I think it will still retry a random callout the next time. >
Yes - and that may be why you got blacklisted. Because every callout to a host that didn't accept random calls resulted in at least one failure. But maybe if I can make the system remember the failed random callout then I can avoid multiple failures. Ideally the fact that random failed should also be cached. -- ## 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/
