On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 01:20, Charlie Watts wrote:
> Depends. Does Exim actually process all the Received lines, or does it
> just test the connecting host?
>
> Trouble is that SA has some flexibility I think Exim doesn't have - the
> ability to tag message differently based on the contents of the
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 06:20:59PM -0700, Charlie Watts wrote:
| Depends. Does Exim actually process all the Received lines, or does it
| just test the connecting host?
Just the connecting host, I believe.
To answer Olivier's comment, exim can be configured to "warn",
"reject", "skiprelay", or "
If I recall well, when sendmail is configured for RBL it wil test the
envellope and simply refuses the email. So what is passed to SA has been accepted on
the envellope.
But the envellope does not mean the headers are correct, so it is
worth SA check the headers too.
Olivier
> > It can't hurt
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:46:31PM -0800, Craig Hughes wrote:
> It can't hurt to add the rule. Then people using RBL checks in exim can
> turn off the rbl checks in SA and automatically get the benefit of the
> rule w/out having to compose their own rule. I guess the only possible
> problem is w
It can't hurt to add the rule. Then people using RBL checks in exim can
turn off the rbl checks in SA and automatically get the benefit of the
rule w/out having to compose their own rule. I guess the only possible
problem is where people don't turn off SA RBL checking and so messages
get a doubl
Depends. Does Exim actually process all the Received lines, or does it
just test the connecting host?
Trouble is that SA has some flexibility I think Exim doesn't have - the
ability to tag message differently based on the contents of the DNS reply,
not just the existence of one.
But indeed - doi
Anyone think this a useful feature?
Taking what exim returns instead of actually doing the rbl tests?
- Forwarded message from Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Envelope-to: daf-rogers@localhost
Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 17:17:32 -0500
Subject: Bug#132733: X-RBL-Warning
Reply-To: J
