On 9/13/07 4:00 AM, "Simon Hobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my users receives mail from an AOL listserver. The digest fails > to reach him on every second day. To investigate the issue, I subscribed > for a while via an unrelated mail server which doesn't do sender > verification. The difference in the headers was fairly obvious: > > On bad days > (envelope-sender > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > On good days > (envelope-sender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Assuming I *should not* whitelist AOL, that I should put the onus > squarely back on AOL, how should I word this message and who should I > send it to? If I can understand the issue better, I can inform my user > as to why the responsibility should rest with AOL. G'day... 1. AOL isn't going to change. 2. It appears that AOL is using VERP-like processing on alternate days, to help with bounce processing. That's fairly common (it saves bandwidth--internet-wide--compared with VERPing on every list send). 3. Why wouldn't you whitelist the AOL servers (as distinct from @aol sender addresses, of course), with respect to sender verification callouts? Do you actually find AOL servers sending out messages from non-existent @aol.com addresses? 4. It's not clear, however, why AOL would fail sender verification callouts with their VERPed addresses. They do want those bounces (those are the more useful ones to a mailing list system). I see you having two choices, given item 1: Change your server so that the AOL practice works, or tell your user to subscribe using some other address (depending on your market, that could be the same as telling the user to go away altogether). This has been pretty much a guess, because of the "improvements" you made in the information you sent us. --John -- ## 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/
