On Sun, 28 Apr 2024, Andreas Metzler via Exim-users wrote:
On 2024-04-28 Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@lists.exim.org> wrote:
On 28/04/2024 06:05, Andreas Metzler via Exim-users wrote:
The router fails all bounces where
inbound_srs{} fails, not only the ones that "look SRS'd".
It assumes that you really are SRS'ing all outbounds, therefore
any bounce not SRS (in addition to those with bad SRS) is
de-facto not valid.
If the "all outbounds" does not hold in your configuration
then you would need more complexity for this element.
Hello,
There is progress. ;-)
inbound_srs_failure only handles addresses with valid SRS-syntax (That
is what I missed before.) that have not been grabbed by inbound_srs,
i.e. they have a wrong checksum or fail the timestamp < 10 day check.
These message are rejected with a nice error message.
So afaiui the whole point of this router is to produce a nice error
instead of a generic "Unrouteable address".
That was my guess too.
- Does this make sense?
When SPF/SRS came out there was concern that SRS had a relay attack,
so showing SRS errors separately would have been desired.
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
and...@aitchison.me.uk
--
## subscription configuration (requires account):
## https://lists.exim.org/mailman3/postorius/lists/exim-users.lists.exim.org/
## unsubscribe (doesn't require an account):
## exim-users-unsubscr...@lists.exim.org
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
