Well, in fact, my concern is that exim logged response to "MAIL FROM:<>" when it should have logged reponse to "RCPT TO: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>". By no means the server could have answered before I gave the "RCPT TO" command. Furthermore, as the RCPT seems a correct address exim uses, I see no reason the remote server isn't answering correctly to SMTP protocol.
On 2/10/2006, "Brent Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Renaud Allard wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am now using exim 4.60, and I noticed something quite strange to me in >> the logs when doing sender verification. Here is the relevant log line: >> >> 2006-02-09 11:38:28 H=c-24-63-184-85.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.63.184.85] >> sender verify fail for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: response to >> "MAIL FROM:<>" from calligate2.cali.co.uk [62.172.47.141] was: 550 >> 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is not a >> valid mailbox >> >> However, how could the server possibly have answered "not a valid >> mailbox" at "MAIL FROM: <>" step? >> >> If I do it by hand, I just get: >> telnet calligate2.cali.co.uk 25 >> Trying 62.172.47.141... >> Connected to calligate2.cali.co.uk. >> Escape character is '^]'. >> 220 digest2.cali.co.uk ESMTP server ready (Alligate v1.5.11.16-267.1-1.23) >> helo mail.llorien.org >> 250 digest2.cali.co.uk >> mail from: <> >> 250 OK >> rcpt to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> 550 5.1.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is >> not a valid mailbox >> >> Which seems ok. However Exim logged it from "MAIL FROM:" step. >> > >Hi > >I dont know much, about spam etc, but either this is a new spam technic and >sender verify does not >handle it correctly, or worse, I think its a mis-confgured or crappy MTA >(Alligate) that does not >follow simple SMTP rules. > >Wonder if we cant tighen our sender / callback verify more? > >Kind Regards >Brent Clar -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
