On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 08:56:52AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 06:28:40PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > > This one time, at band camp, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh said: > >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > >>> As I know it, the receiving MX connects the regular MX for the > >>> sender address to see if *that* is ready to receive mail. Works > >>> beautifully if outbound != inbound. > > >> And sets the envolope sender to what in the probe? > > > <>, hopefully. Anything else is silly. > > Yes and no. An increasing number of sites refuse "bounces" (that is > messages with null return-path) to some addresses that are known never > to send mail. This breaks the procedure and is reacted by other sites > by using a fixed "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" address, and mail to > that address doesn't incur that check (but ends up in /dev/null or > gets refused at DATA time).
That doesn't add up. Since <> never sends mail, there will never be a sender verification callback TO that address either. What's the problem? Likewise if you refuse bounces to other inbound-only addresses, you should never get inbound probes. That is kind of the point. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
