On Thu, 14 May 2009, Dave Pooser wrote: > > > In the other hand we do callouts with a special > > username (not <>) to avoid problems with servers rejecting bounces > > No matter your opinion on callouts, that is an epically bad idea. Imagine > that you and I are both doing that, and I want to send you an email: > > You get an email from dave-e...@example.com > Your server replies with a callback from f...@yourserver.tld > My server sees an incoming message from f...@yourserver.tld to > dave-e...@example.com and responds with a callout from b...@example.com > Your server responds with a callout from f...@yourserver.tld to > b...@example.com.... >
Also, if the server being called out to does BATV, the callout will fail if you don't use '<>' as the callout originator (if you want to use non-null, you either need to go through DATA, and get the 'From: ' address, OR transform the BATV'ized address back to what it was originally). -- -------------------------------------------------------- Dave Lugo dl...@etherboy.com LC Unit #260 TINLC Have you hugged your firewall today? No spam, thanks. -------------------------------------------------------- Are you the police? . . . . No ma'am, we're sysadmins. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
