Hi Scott,
I'm quite pleased with the extra feature and in my past messages I forgot to
mention that it's also possible we don't have access to the MTA's log
because it is owned by someone else. If a problem arises we can now tell the
MTA's owner it accepted the message and make it his problem.
Hi all,
Could someone tell me if this has been covered?
mx1.hotmail.com resolves to 6 IP-addresses and ASSP 2.0.1(RC 0.4.33) reacts
with mx1.hotmail.com has wrong IP and MX Missing
JP
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Pierre van Melis j...@mirmana.com
To: 'ASSP development mailing
JP,
Actually, I think you'll find that ASSP is correct
Msn.com does, as you say, contain multiple MX records, and each of these
records resolves to multiple IP addresses (BTW, this is very common for
large mail systems - provides fault tolerance and redundancy...)
However, none of these
However, none of these records point to the server that sent the message
(65.55.111.155) - that's why the test is failing...
Only small scale MTA's send their mail from the same address as their
MX-records. Checking the IP against MX-records has no use at all and will
only tell you how big
It does say : mx1.hotmail.com has wrong IP because there was no
corresponding IP found.
[MissingMX] is just the feature tag.
mx1.hotmail.com resolves to several IP's, just not the sending IP. This is a
quite normal situation, isn't it?
It's still unclear to me if ASSP failed to resolve
I think it was just a temp-problem with OpenDNS.
I just sent another mail from msn.com and it didn't come with this
message
Cheers
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Pierre van Melis j...@mirmana.com
To: ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Mon, 19 Oct
I just tested the new feature replyLogging and set it to enabled - all
because I would like to explicitly see the MTA's response. There was no
problem receiving the mail, but no message came into the log
# grep replyLogging assp.cfg
replyLogging:=2
# grep -A1 46245-13488 logs/maillog.txt
I think you completely underestimate the power of a mail loop and the
action it can take on a local to local system. Not that this is a
mail loop, but qmail was returning a wrong response. A try again
later response, if you could craft a way to make hundreds of those
happen per second,
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
replyLogging
replyLogging is not a new feature (at least 18 monthes old) and logs
the reply ASSP is sending.
ConnectionLog is reponsible for logging the connection, set it to
verbose.
replyLogging is not a new feature (at least 18 monthes old) and
logs the reply ASSP is sending.
ConnectionLog is reponsible
for logging the connection, set it to verbose.
Aha, Fair
enough.
As I already wrote before I haven't been watching the
latest developments this year which also
The problem is that the sending IP is not listed in the A records for
mx1.hotmail.com, although it PTR's to someth...@hotmail.com - so ASSP is
working as should, where is the problem? That server has bad MX
configuration, pure and simple. You could argue for an exception list
for MX check, or
Yes it is a bug, because as Scott poined out temporary errors are for
those messages that might be accepted later, missing LF ones will surely
not.
Since you said that setup was 5 years old, maybe this will help since
you don't want to patch qmail:
The problem is that the sending IP is not listed in the A records for
mx1.hotmail.com
Not true.
This is no problem at all. The sending party IP doesn't have to exist in any
of the MX-records. Preferrably not, even.
It turned out to be something temporarily. I'm using OpenDNS and it probably
And please, stop arguing about RFC
compliance, backscatter is RFC compliant it doesn't mean it shouldn't be
blocked :-) hell even spam can be RFC compliant, so what?If something is
not RFC-compliant it should be blocked. But like Scott said, if big players
like MSN are not compliant one has
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
Yes it is a bug, because as Scott poined out temporary errors are for
those messages that might be accepted later, missing LF ones will
surely
not.
RFC 821 also requires, in section 4.1.1, that The receiver should not
Alex Frunza wrote:
hell even spam can be RFC compliant, so what?
So true!
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
Alex Frunza wrote:
hell even spam can be RFC compliant, so what?
So true!
Check your oestrogen level ;-)
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need
ASSP is all about invalidating mail because of incompliance of RFC and even
goes further than this. It's just because this specific incompliance is not
realistic it should just be discarded.
non-RFC-compliance is indeed a valid reason to invalidate a message..
Reversing this logic into An
1. RFC are guidelines
2. Even MS Exchange server (for example) isn't 100% fully RFC compliant -
does that mean all exchange servers should be
dumped/deleted/ignored/replaced with (insert favorite mail server
here)..
Steve
On 10/19/09 4:38 PM, Jean-Pierre van Melis j...@mirmana.com
Mysoginistic some?
Fine, I'll play along. Will you check say 50 of your regular senders'
ips at rfc-ignorant.org and tell me how many come up breaking a RFC
requirement? Whole ISP's are listed there for instance for having bad
whois, non-working abuse etc. etc. If you start playing by those
Jean-Pierre van Melis wrote:
hell even spam can be RFC compliant, so what?
So true!
Check your oestrogen level ;-)
I hate to break it to you, but taking it for what it is, the first
statement above is true. It has nothing to do with Estrogen.
Hill, I wonder what he would say to a woman replying on this mailing
list. 'You have female logic' might not be insulting to her, and she
might be well pleased with her estrogen level :D
On 10/19/2009 4:03 PM, Hill, Brett wrote:
Jean-Pierre van Melis wrote:
hell even spam can be RFC
COMMENT: remove whole second TR
No, this does not work with lower screen resolution.
Sure it does, wraps just like the rest of the form fields. I'll see what's
changed with 0.5.0 and report back if necessary.
--
Come
Fine, I'll play along. Will you check say 50 of
your regular senders'
ips at rfc-ignorant.org and tell me how
many come up breaking a RFC
requirement? Whole ISP's are listed
there for instance for having bad
whois, non-working abuse etc.
etc. If you start playing by those
Thanks. That was it.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Thomas Eckardt/eck
thomas.ecka...@thockar.com wrote:
[spam found] (URIBLcache: fail, p06.com listed in
clean the URIBLcache.
Thomas
K Post nntp.p...@gmail.com
18.10.2009 22:03
Bitte antworten an
ASSP development mailing list
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
But this is all getting out of hand. I merely want to see in my log
what's
going on and if a server which has been handling mail for more than 7
years
for 800 toplevel domains doesn't want to receive one specific mail
I'm
I understand, but because you are not willing to address the real
reason for the problem, you started this thread by blaming ASSP. :
Bare LF's rejected by Qmail but undetected by ASSP
Nice.
I wasn't blaming anyone. It was an observation and this observation was
correct. Why be offended if
I really like the new layout of the search options in 0.5.0. Compact,
clear, well thought out.
However, I still see:
tr
div class=note
$h2
/div
/tr
That's not valid HTML. The div would need to be in a td/td. Looking at
the screen, this is displaying below the div
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
I'm a very satisfied user of ASSP for several years now and I never
realized
a refusal without a logentry in ASSP was possible. I just hope this
will
change.
I really regret to have worked on this. exit.
I really regret to have worked on this. exit.
This was my initial message... Immediately afterwards it's as if I'm on trial
and I have to show evidence to substantiate my vile accusations. If I've been
offensive it was merely a reaction on the responses I got from this decent and
valid
Jean-Pierre van Melis wrote:
I always assumed I could get all the workflow out of ASSP's
log. Isn't this the intention?
Not necessarily. ASSP's just an in-between-man trying not to look like
an in-between-man (aka Proxy). It's not going to always show
everything.
No (complex) software is
Hi Brett,
Since you are unable to get anything in either of your logs, I would suggest
running a tcp/ip packet capture
I was able to find that 451 using ASSP with debug logging enabled.
Cheers,
JP
--
Come build
A few observations:
1) the connection log line continues to wrap when it should not:
Oct-19-09 14:06:22 [Worker_1] Connected: 187.40.129.121:1028 -
999.999.999.999:25 -
127.0.0.1:xxx
2) In the maillog tail page, there could be a reset of wrap at: and tail bytes:
to reset
2.0.1 rc 0.5.00
If I access the rebuild log via the admin interface, I see:
Oct-19-09 13:15:00 Trashlist: cleaning finished; before=16, deleted=0
When this log is emailed to me, in the email I see
Oct-19-09 13:15:00 Trashlist: cleaning finished; before, deleted=
Note the missing = after before
Out of curiosity, what browser are you using? For me in IE8 and
Firefox 3.5 on the pc, the width of the wrap and tailbytes fields are
fine. Wrap lets me see 5 characters, and tailbytes just under 7 full
characters.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Trevor Jacques tre...@videlicet.com wrote:
A
Out of curiosity, what browser are you using?
Safari. 100% ACID 3 compliant. :-)
http://acid3.acidtests.org/
T.
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you
1) the connection log line continues to wrap when it should not:
Oct-19-09 14:06:22 [Worker_1] Connected: 187.40.129.121:1028 -
999.999.999.999:25 -
127.0.0.1:xxx
Here are a couple of others, from different sources:
Oct-19-09 14:23:53 id-76622-02710 [Worker_1]
Hi all,
fixed in 2.0.1_RC0.5.01
- subject header lines are wrong parsed if the subject is multiline eg.
Subject: some text[CRLF]
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Text1?=[CRLF]
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Text2?=[CRLF]
.
or
Subject:[CRLF]
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Text1?=[CRLF]
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Text2?=[CRLF]
.
- MSOL 2007
changed
- some small changes in MaillogTail design
Excellent. Thanks, Thomas.
BTW, I suspect you missed/forgot the wrap at: field. Something for the next
update. :-)
T.
--
Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R)
Well put. Rfc is guideline. System admins interpret those guidelines
for their own policy. Could be good, or bad, or neither.
Some rfc are common sense. The admin decides what they want to do.
Certainly allowing a bare LF to congest a system is bad policy. It
won't magically dissapear, so
BTW, I suspect you missed/forgot the wrap at: field. Something for the
next update. :-)
Where do you want to wrap a log line - at possion 1000 ?? :)
Thomas
Trevor Jacques tre...@videlicet.com
19.10.2009 22:15
Bitte antworten an
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
That's just illogical. Qmail is responding wrong. No debate. It's
broken. Your willing to ask for a change in ASSP but not willing to
fix qmail to reject a bare LF over temp failing it?
--
Scott
Iphone says hello.
On Oct 19, 2009, at 7:31 AM, Jean-Pierre van Melis j...@mirmana.com
wrote:
Qmail isn't sending a refusal, it's sending something back that looks
like a greylisting. How does ASSP know what it is. ASSP can only go on
the 4.x.x reply or 5.x.x reply. You are sending the wrong reply. ASSP
can not know the difference.
I fail to see why you would desire qmail to behave
On Oct 19, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Fritz Borgstedt f...@iworld.de wrote:
ASSP development mailing list assp-test@lists.sourceforge.net
schreibt:
I'm a very satisfied user of ASSP for several years now and I never
realized
a refusal without a logentry in ASSP was possible. I just hope this
will
Because qmail is not rejecting the message.
--
Scott
Iphone says hello.
On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Jean-Pierre van Melis j...@mirmana.com
wrote:
.It seems this mail is getting refused by qmail. My question
now is why doesn't this show up in ASSP's log? It seems this mail is
I only asked for an extra logentry which is generic and isn't meant for this
specific situation.
I have had more than 10 ideas for ASSP in the past which have been implemented
and may even be of use to you at this moment. I think this idea is for
everyone's benefit as well. Of course it's
Thomas - you're a rockstar. I will report back with Outlook 2007 / DKIM.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Thomas Eckardt/eck
thomas.ecka...@thockar.com wrote:
BTW, I suspect you missed/forgot the wrap at: field. Something for the
next update. :-)
Where do you want to wrap a log line - at
In mine environment it works!
regards
Marco
-Original Message-
From: K Post [mailto:nntp.p...@gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2009 00:42
To: ASSP development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Assp-test] Antwort: Re: fixes and changes in 2.0.1_RC0.5.01
Thomas - you're a rockstar. I
48 matches
Mail list logo
