stephen noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> try it, it doesn't work
> mail to shared goes to everyone
Hi Stephen. Thanks for your report but I can not confirm this. The
feature of blocking external mail to these defaults groups has always
existed and my contribution does not alter this existing
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Actually I wanted to be sure that the group addresses were not rejected.
This is a toggle that is set in the config db. View home/e-smith/accounts
and check the 'everyone' group.
/sbin/e-smith/db /home/e-smith/accounts \
setprop account Visible interna
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 03:27, Darrell May wrote:
> If I may request, I would ask everyone please take a look at my contrib rpm
> and become aquainted with your smtpd_check_rules. My rpm installs only one
> file (60AllowLocalDomains) into templates-custom. Issuing a signal-event
> email-update is a
>From: "Hugh Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Like Les, I would like to see some protection against outsiders being able
> to mailto "group" email addresses. Darrell has pointed out a commandline
> workaround, but could I suggest that this setting should be a standard
> switch inside the Groups Panel
esell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] smtpd_check_rules bug
>
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It has to also
Tim Litwiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Darrell, after your fix could you try a setting a machine to send
> undeliverables to the admin and see if that works.
Hi Tim. This is the exact beast we are trying to prevent from running
wild.
Here is what currently happens:
'60AllowLocalDomains'
Darrel, after your fix could you try a setting a machine to send
undeliverables to the admin and see if that works.
If that does then I think your fix is a good thing and will make the
admin panel really do what we think it says it will do.
Darrell May wrote:
>Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hugh Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've tried this solution on my production server, and it fixes my
problem
> nicely (and more securely than my earlier hack ..)
I've now deployed on two production servers myself. One being mine!
> Here in Australia where we pay for usage the ability to sto
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has to also catch the lists automatically constructed for 'groups'
and
> it would be nice to have a provision for additional aliases/lists that
> might be added with ezmlm or similar tools.
Already built in and ready. Give my rpm a try before you rep
nfo] Re: doublebounceto (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo]
Re: [TT20020107010] [e-smith-devinfo] smtpd_check_rules bug)
>
> Hugh Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I actually have a requirement to allow users on that domain to recieve
> > email, so I have now set up the SME to rejec
>From: "Darrell May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> or [option-2]:
>
> # Allow any of our valid e-mail accounts per any of our domains
> allow:ALL:ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> allow:ALL:ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> allow:ALL:ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> allow:ALL:ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> allow:ALL:ALL:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Hugh Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I actually have a requirement to allow users on that domain to recieve
> email, so I have now set up the SME to reject mail to unknown users. The
> problem now is that I am getting about 5 bounce bounced messages per
> minute.
Hugh, take a look at the soluti
Another real-world situation
Over the Xmas break it appears that some spammer decided to use a
non-existant email address from one of my virtual domains as the "reply-to"
address. I had set up SME to send mail to unknown recipients to the admin.
I was out of internet range from 27 Dec to 2
result in
1500 rules! That could be nothing, or it could be quite a lot.
> -Original Message-
> From: Darrell May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:03 PM
> To: Steve Bush; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; e-smith-devinfo
> Subject: Re: [e-smith-devin
Steve Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Would Option 1 allow relaying to a different domain if the username was
> correct?
That was the question I had as well, however I thought 'maybe' the rules
above stopped that. Rules are top to bottom order.
I've actually found it VERY easy to implement [
Would Option 1 allow relaying to a different domain if the username was
correct?
- Original Message -
From: "Darrell May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [e-smit
Taking a lunch break and thought what if we replaced this:
# Allow any of our domains
allow:ALL:ALL:*.netsourced.com *@netsourced.com
allow:ALL:ALL:*.myezserver.com *@myezserver.com
with this [option-1]:
# Allow any of our valid e-mail accounts
allow:ALL:ALL:darrell.may@*
allow:ALL:ALL:dar
El Mar 08 Ene 2002 18:33, Darrell May escribió:
> Jaime Nebrera Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hi Dan,
>
> I guess 'Darrell' translates to 'Dan' in Spanish ;->
Oh my :) Sorry I have a very busy day today and I confused myself.
Bye Antonio :))
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PRO
Jaime Nebrera Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi Dan,
I guess 'Darrell' translates to 'Dan' in Spanish ;->
> There is a Linux utility that conects to the POP mailbox before actual
This would not work. We need to stop at the smtp connection long before
pop mailboxes are reached.
I'm
Hi Dan,
There is a Linux utility that conects to the POP mailbox before actual
download of email and removes directly every email that matches a given set
of rules.
I guess this is of no use to your problem as here only SMTP y involved but
it might help. I will try to find out what was
Steve Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I like the idea of refusing the message before it gets to qmail.
Agreed.
> Now if there was a foolproof method to verify return addresses before
> accepting email so we could get rid of the spam coming in to valid
> users!!!
There is in smtpd_check_rules
t: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] Re: doublebounceto (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Re:
[TT20020107010] [e-smith-devinfo] smtpd_check_rules bug)
>
> Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Double bounces may well be an important indication of problems
Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Double bounces may well be an important indication of problems,
Agreed. However if everyone returns to my original bug report and reviews
my suggested solution, this would stop any need for the invalid address,
double-bounce messages in the first pla
Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yep. Talking directly to the SMTP port on a remote system and sending
> mail to "Postmaster" is sometimes the only way to notify them of
> problems.
Understood. We need another solution.
--
Darrell May
DMC Netsourced.com
http://netsourced.com
http:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:59:19PM -0500, Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
>
> > solution. Block all emails coming in on the external interface addressed
> > directly to the postmaster. Don't know if this might 'break' something.
>
> Like RFC
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 01:34:48AM -0600, John Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> It looks like you could hack in a fake address and force it to hack on
> the bounced double-bounce. Looks like a safe hack to me.
> [...]
Double bounces may well be an important indication of problems, and
just another quick 'real-world' example to add to the fray...
my domain name (plexnet.com) used to belong to a now defunct isp in oregon.
before they went bankrupt, a number of their customers used their e-mail
accounts to visit every last porn site on the internet. valid, non-spam
messages
> Exactly Les. This is what I am trying albeit poorly to report.
This is
> infuriating for a client of mine and there has to be a way to stop
this type
> of, 'the bounce bounced' messages.
Darrell,
I figured out a simple, safe hack for you to solve this problem. The
double-bounce operation is
rodolphe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "bad behaviour" (I do agree with Darrel May and Les Mikesell)
confirmed.
> I 'll give a try your fragment Darrel.
> (and I will keep it I guess).
If you rebuild the fragment as I suggested please share. You may e-mail me
directly and I will post on my si
"bad behaviour" (I do agree with Darrel May and Les Mikesell) confirmed.
I 'll give a try your fragment Darrel.
(and I will keep it I guess).
--
rodolphemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to dis
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In an office that has had some turnover I get about a hundred
> 'the bounce bounced' messages from qmail a day from unreturnable
> spam sources to deleted users. It would really be nicer if such mail
> could just be refused instead of wasting the resourc
OTECTED]>
Cc: "e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Re: [TT20020107010] [e-smith-devinfo]
smtpd_check_rules bug
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > messages. The smtpd relay is
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
> solution. Block all emails coming in on the external interface addressed
> directly to the postmaster. Don't know if this might 'break' something.
Like RFC822 compliance, perhaps?
--
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lead Product
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Les Mikesell wrote:
> messages. The smtpd relay is performing the same function as the
> 'outside' relay and if it accepts messages for unknown users then it
> must process the notifications when qmail rejects them.
Not so. Smtpd does not process notifications from qmail. I
Darrell May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> E-smith release = 4.1.2
> Email to unknown users: = Return to sender
>
> I reported this was noticeable behaviour with mailing lists messages.
> Could this be the key?
Just thinking out load but is this what might be happening
1) message comes in f
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
> Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Where it says "E-mail to unknown users", you can choose either "Return to
> > sender" or "Send to adminstrator".
>
> Thanks for the reply. I thought you caught me again Charlie.
>
> However I just tunnelled o
lie Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] Re: [TT20020107010] [e-smith-devinfo]
smtpd_check_rules bug
>
> Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTEC
Rasjid Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Darrell,
>
> On your 'Other e-mail settings', I take it you have 'E-mail to unknown
> users:' set to 'Send to administrator'? Perhaps try setting this
> to 'Return to Sender'.
It _is_ 'Return to Sender' :-( Bug report continues...
--
Darrell May
D
Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Where it says "E-mail to unknown users", you can choose either "Return
to
> sender" or "Send to adminstrator".
Thanks for the reply. I thought you caught me again Charlie.
However I just tunnelled over to the client's server and confirmed "Email
to un
L PROTECTED]>
To: "e-smith-devinfo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:40 PM
Subject: [e-smith-devinfo] smtpd_check_rules bug
>
> smtpd_check_rules/60AllowLocalDomains
>
> Problem:
> - the '60AllowLocalDomains' fr
but in other instances this is exactly the behaviour we want so, it
really is a feature.
Darrell May wrote:
>smtpd_check_rules/60AllowLocalDomains
>
>Problem:
>- the '60AllowLocalDomains' fragment allows all smtp connections to proceed
>simply if the domain name matches a local domain. This p
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote:
>
> Damien Curtain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I cant see how this is a bug.
>
> Guess you did not take a moment to test before you replied. Try a test and
> see what happens. If you have your server configured correctly either
> 'admin' or your desig
Just an addendum to this report. The problem was noted on an active e-smith
4.1.2 server.
Regards,
--
Darrell May
DMC Netsourced.com
http://netsourced.com
http://myEZserver.com
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues
Support
Damien Curtain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I cant see how this is a bug.
Guess you did not take a moment to test before you replied. Try a test and
see what happens. If you have your server configured correctly either
'admin' or your designated 'postmaster' will receive an error message.
I w
smtpd_check_rules/60AllowLocalDomains
Problem:
- the '60AllowLocalDomains' fragment allows all smtp connections to proceed
simply if the domain name matches a local domain. This permits message
traffic even if the message is addressed to an invalid e-mail account.
Executive Summary:
- Consider
45 matches
Mail list logo
