Re: [exim] LHS quoting rules in local_parts option

On 2005-06-30 at 16:52 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Phil Pennock wrote: > > We have at least one customer explicitly using trailing space in the > > LHS. > > Barking! I couldn't possibly comment. > > What's the preferred and supported form of quoting to handle arbitrary > > LH

[exim] Kill file filter [was Re: a large number of domains fronted by Exim are] refusing bounces...

Ted Cooper wrote: > I'm really quite sick of this thread and if I was using a good enough > email client to ignore it, I would. But, alas, I am stuck with a > windows client and I'll just have to reply to convince you to PLEASE > take this elsewhere. Hear! This thread prompted me to write an exim

Re: [exim] exiscan, spamassassin, and per-domain bayes database

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > What I do do is feed in ALL > spam back as spam again to reinforce it and only feed in the false > positives as ham and occasionally a few other things while I am at it > and just copy a few random good mails out of my inboxes Is autolearning turned

Re: [exim] exiscan, spamassassin, and per-domain bayes database

On Jun 29, 2005, at 12:35 AM, Steve Lamb wrote: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: At least a good portion is sent so widely that one user's spam is similar to another users spam. True, but you're forgetting that there are two sets to each user. Spam and ham. While spam is gener

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 14:08:27 (+1000), Ted Cooper wrote: ] > >>Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing >>bounces... >> >>Incidently, EVERY OTHER MTA, can be configured EASILY to not

[exim] Child process return 255 ? Can I re-queue messages automatically?

Hi, I have this transport: process_mail: driver = pipe freeze_exec_fail = true command = "/etc/mail/process.pl ${sender_address} ${local_part} ${domain} ${pipe_addresses}" check_string = escape_string = return_output = false return_path_add = false headers_add = testing "done"

Re: [exim] acl example

Terry Danter wrote: Could some one give me an example acl for white listing that could be placed at the top of my alc's put accept acl = whitelist at the beginning of the ACLs you want to use this in. I would love to include some like sender_domains = /usr/local/etc/exim/exim.whitelist sen

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: In any case the fault is not that of cPanel or its users -- the fault lies squarely on Exim which makes it so easy for these people, i.e. those building and/or installing cPanel, to break SMTP error handling. Exim is not responsible for misconfiguration by its users. An

[exim] Phishing Targets

Marc wrote: > The test I had thought of, which would be better suited > in SA than Exim, is to check the links. If the text inside > an A HREF tag perports to be from a common phishing target > match it agains the URL the tag defines. If the tag URL does > not match the domain inside the

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: > Huh? What the heck does content (i.e. the part sent betweeen DATA and > end-of-DATA) have to do with the use of a null sender address (i.e. the > parameter sent with the MAIL command)!?!?!?!? I'm surprised you have to ask that, Greg. > If the content is clearly junk th

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > [ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 22:54:08 (+0100), Mark Smith wrote: ] > > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by > Exim are refusing bounces... > > > > #!!# ACL that is used after the DATA command > > check_message: > > r

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusingbounces...

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg A. Woods > (some people do like to accomodate stupid broken software by > delaying MAIL rejects until the RCPT command(s), but even > that's a rather counter-productive waste of _everyone's_ time > and resources, and still

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 22:54:08 (+0100), Mark Smith wrote: ] > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > #!!# ACL that is used after the DATA command > check_message: > require verify = header_sender > accept Excuse my obvious Exim ig

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:58:42PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > Get a pair of decent modern fibre-channel PCI host adapters (ideally > 64-bit for the decently fast 64-bit PCI slots in your decently high-end > server system) that are supported by your current operating system and > then go out and

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: But I never saw a person using empty sender and cannot think of a reason why somebody should do it. I guess you've never seen me manually testing MTAs with telnet then! ;-) Well, using is not testing. Anyway, I rarely use <> for testing, it's only a special case. A pe

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 16:54:16 (-0500), Rick Cooper wrote: ] > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > I specifically stated I do not dump valid > mails from null. Hmmm I have to assume that when you said "The use of null, mailer_d

[exim] acl example

Could some one give me an example acl for white listing that could be placed at the top of my alc's I tried some thing like whitelist: accept senders = lsearch*@;/usr/local/etc/exim/test And a few others off the mailing list with no success. I would love to include some like sender_domains = /u

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 16:25:28 (-0400), David Brodbeck wrote: ] > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > It's actually requires a fair amount of knowledge to implement such a policy > by hand. There may be some kind of automatic tool

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 04:55:42PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Michael Haardt wrote: > > > > I am using tmpfs for hints. I will try no_message_logs, but as I > > said: Removing the fsync() calls already helps a lot, probably by > > avoiding disk transfers for messages that are

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

Marc Perkel wrote: > That's where I got my list from - thanks for the link. I just took the > ones with the biggest scores and put them in for my test. And - I'm > catching a few. My trick doesn't depend on signatures. I figure that > real email from these major institutions will come from a server

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

That's where I got my list from - thanks for the link. I just took the ones with the biggest scores and put them in for my test. And - I'm catching a few. My trick doesn't depend on signatures. I figure that real email from these major institutions will come from a server that has a reverse DNS

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> -Original Message- > From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg > A. Woods > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:15 PM > To: Rick Cooper > Cc: Exim User's Mailing List > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are > refusing bounces... > > > [ On Thur

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> -Original Message- > From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > [ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 05:47:09 (+0100), Mark Smith wrote: ] > > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by > Exim are refusingbounces... > > > > Where did this idea start that Exim on cPa

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: > Please use reply-to properly if you want to avoid CCs. I'm not going to > think, or presume, for you. Sure you are. You're presuming we want CCs. We've just told you we don't. Hate to break it to you but common courtesy (not doing something someone has asked you poli

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 05:47:09 (+0100), Mark Smith wrote: ] > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are > refusingbounces... > > Where did this idea start that Exim on cPanel systems doesn't accept null > senders? It does, and always has done. Because that's the

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 20:29:17 (+0200), Jakob Hirsch wrote: ] > Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > But I > never saw a person using empty sender and cannot think of a reason why > somebody should do it. I guess you've never see

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 10:02:06 (-0500), Rick Cooper wrote: ] > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > The use of null, mailer_daemon, etc in the checks for virus bounces is to > make sure that mails arriving from an individual conce

Re: [exim] High Perf server

[ On Thursday, June 30, 2005 at 10:48:00 (+0200), Michael Haardt wrote: ] > Subject: Re: [exim] High Perf server > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:43:46PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > Don't forget that SMTP requires implementations to make commitments > > about how reliably they can process message

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: > Exim should must never allow $sender to expand to anything that can be > represented in the configuration language whenever it is set by an > incoming SMTP (or SUBMIT, or LMTP, etc.) transaction to be a null return > path. Wow, can I call it or what? Didn't I say this i

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> -Original Message- > From: Marc Sherman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Greg A. Woods wrote: > > Exim is designed to be extremely flexible without concern for many > > protocol constraints and thus suffers from being easy to configure > > incorrectly, and Exim also suffers from being extreme

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: Exim is designed to be extremely flexible without concern for many protocol constraints and thus suffers from being easy to configure incorrectly, and Exim also suffers from being extremely obtuse and hard to use on the SMTP side. Why is it exactly that you subscribe to thi

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> -Original Message- > From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Perhaps not, but Exim's current design is what has made it > possible for > many _millions_ of domains to implement such a policy without a second > thought or apparently even a stern warning. It's actually requires a

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 23:42:30 (-0400), Stephen Gran wrote: ] > Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > You'll note that neither of these say, "you can't do it", they say > "don't do it". Of course -- the authors of the FAQ entries I

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

[ On Wednesday, June 29, 2005 at 23:27:32 (-0400), Stephen Gran wrote: ] > Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing > bounces... > > I guess you missed my point. If you expose the $sender_is_null or > senders = : at any point, you have exposed it. It could also

[exim] Mail hub and verification of recipients.

Hello all, I am trying to configure Exim as a mail hub. The job of this hub will be to pass all mail for our domain to another box running Exim behind the firewall. One of the things I want the mail hub to do is make sure that the recipient is valid. I have read the FAQ and I also have a copy of

[exim] Virtual domains with Exim4 on Debian 3.1

I'm an exim newbie, and am having a ton of trouble with virtual domains (amoung other things related to Exim, but let's takle virtual domains for now). I've followed the instructions http://koivi.com/exim4-config/ to a T, checked it twice, but am coming up unsuccessful. First thing that's wrong i

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Greg A. Woods wrote: So if the recipient address is never used for outgoing mail, why in the world should any machine send mail to this address? You seem to think that anything, agent or human, sending mail has to have a mailbox address. That's simply not true. It's simply not true that I th

Re: [exim] Autoreply Vacation DB in EXIM?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, .|MoNK|Cucumber . wrote: > Is it possible to make Exim send an auto-reply only once every 7 days instead > of sending an auto-reply every single time? See the once_repeat option. Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\ N\}{([^N]

[exim] Autoreply Vacation DB in EXIM?

Is it possible to make Exim send an auto-reply only once every 7 days instead of sending an auto-reply every single time? -- ## 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/

Re: [exim] greylisting again and whitelist entries

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Sergey Sysoev wrote: > > I've configured Exim 4.50 for greylisting like > http://theinternetco.net/projects/exim/greylist . > > It seems works fine but I want to add whitelist to exclude from > greylist checking _using_exim_. Who can advise how to do it in better way? defer me

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Michael Haardt wrote: > > I am using tmpfs for hints. I will try no_message_logs, but as I > said: Removing the fsync() calls already helps a lot, probably by > avoiding disk transfers for messages that are delivered and deleted > right after being received. Indeed, though yo

Re: [exim] LHS quoting rules in local_parts option

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Phil Pennock wrote: > > We have at least one customer explicitly using trailing space in the > LHS. Barking! > What's the preferred and supported form of quoting to handle arbitrary > LHSs, please? ${quote_local_part:$local_part} Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROT

[exim] greylisting again and whitelist entries

Hi All, I've configured Exim 4.50 for greylisting like http://theinternetco.net/projects/exim/greylist . It seems works fine but I want to add whitelist to exclude from greylist checking _using_exim_. Who can advise how to do it in better way? Here is something like draft using whitelist from: h

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:35:35PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > In order to do that you have to use a single process (threaded or > event-driven) server which is WAY different from Exim :-) Or a distributed algorithm to coordinate things, but yes, it is very different from the current code. > > Ok,

RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

> -Original Message- > From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg > A. Woods > Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:24 PM > To: Rick Cooper > Cc: Exim User's Mailing List > Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are > refusing bounces... > > > [ On Sat

Re: [exim] LHS quoting rules in local_parts option

On 2005-06-30 at 15:39 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > Exim mostly deals with local parts in unquoted form and lowercased. In > your example you should therefore just put ... : foo bar : ... in your > list of local parts. You can add explicit quoting if you want, e.g. to > deal with leading or trailing

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

On 30 Jun 2005 at 6:52, Marc Perkel wrote about "Re: [exim] Phishing Targets": | Thanks - I'm running ClamAV but what I'm trying to block isn't viruses. | I'm trying to block phishing attempts where the users are tricked into | giving up their account info. Understood. ClamAV does detect p

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

* Ian Eiloart wrote (30/06/2005 15:30): > > --On 30 June 2005 06:52:18 -0700 Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks - I'm running ClamAV but what I'm trying to block isn't viruses. > > Yeah, but ClamAV blocks phish bait AND viruses. > >

RE: [exim] Phishing Targets

main does not match > received hosts! > $sender_address_domain > senders = [EMAIL PROTECTED];/etc/exim/run/verifylist.db > !condition = ${if > match{$h_Received:}{$sender_address_domain}{true}{false}} > > The idea is that if the sender is in this list then I compare > the senders d

Re: [exim] LHS quoting rules in local_parts option

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Phil Pennock wrote: > > Should the local_parts option be automatically applying quote_local_part > as needed? Is the current behaviour correct and should I then be > trying to fudge something together with a condition option? Exim mostly deals with local parts in unquoted for

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Michael Haardt wrote: > > Commercial MTAs have demonstrated they can work with less > than one disk transfer per message, In order to do that you have to use a single process (threaded or event-driven) server which is WAY different from Exim :-) > Ok, so you think the queue i

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

nders = [EMAIL PROTECTED];/etc/exim/run/verifylist.db !condition = ${if match{$h_Received:}{$sender_address_domain}{true}{false}} The idea is that if the sender is in this list then I compare the senders domain to the received lines and if it doesn't match - it's phishing. It should catch

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

Fred Viles wrote: On 30 Jun 2005 at 11:05, Ian Eiloart wrote about "Re: [exim] a large number of domain": |... | Oh, there's a point. What's easy about disabling receipt of null sender | emails in Exim? There's work to be done there. I don't see how it could be | made much harder without m

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

On 30 Jun 2005 at 11:05, Ian Eiloart wrote about "Re: [exim] a large number of domain": |... | Oh, there's a point. What's easy about disabling receipt of null sender | emails in Exim? There's work to be done there. I don't see how it could be | made much harder without making it impossible.

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

if the sender is in this list then I compare the senders domain to the received lines and if it doesn't match - it's phishing. It should catch a lot of it. Odhiambo G. Washington wrote: * Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050630 00:42]: wrote: Hi Marc, I looked

[exim] ldap address vverify not working?

I have my LDAP working to verify address in my directory server but I would like to reject all mail coming in where the address is not in the directory server. When i run ./exim -bv [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] failed to verify: User unknown but when email comes is via smtp it just acc

Re: [exim] MIME-ACL: Request for MIME checks

I beg your pardon. I forgot to include my BAD_ATTACHMENTS macro: BAD_ATTACHMENTS = cmd|com|js|reg|chm|cnf|hta|ins|scf|sct|vbs|vbe|\ wsc|wsf|wsh|xnk|mad|maf|mag|mar|mas|mat|mav|maw|bat|pif|scr|exe This should make it clearer. - oliver Odhiambo Washingtonwrote wrote: > > # File extension filter

Re: [exim] message sizes per host

Andreas Barth wrote: Cool. That's already a step to the right direction for me :) However, I prefer domain names if that would also be possible. match_domain has been in exim for a while now, it was added in 4.33. http://exim.org/exim-html-4.50/doc/html/spec_11.html#SECT11.7 Philip, could you

Re: [exim] Eximstats 1.42

Philip, Chris Lear spotted a bug which I've fixed. I've updated the version in CVS to 1.43. Hope it's still in time for the release! Thanks, Steve On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Philip Hazel wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Steve Campbell wrote: Thanks for checking. I got caught out by a trailing space

Re: [exim] Eximstats 1.42

Chris, Thanks for testing and spotting that. Fixed version is 1.43, available from http://www.computurn.com/exim/ Steve On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Chris Lear wrote: * Steve Campbell wrote (28/06/2005 21:59): Eximstats 1.42 is now ready for release. It incorporates several changes as requested b

Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing bounces...

--On 29 June 2005 18:24:40 -0400 "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Guess what? Some people can't read and they have a setting in their mail server (IMail 4.0+ for NT) that rejects those addresses. Why are people allowed to distribute (sell?) such software? (they prob

[exim] LHS quoting rules in local_parts option

Morning all, I'm trying to figure out if I'm doing something stupid or if this is a problem. Enlightenment sought. We have a mail-system which issues mail-domains to customers and customers get to use any LHS they want. We should accept and pass through anything RFC-compliant. We have some mil

Re: [exim] message sizes per host

* Tony Finch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050629 18:55]: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > - message_size_limit = ${if domain_on_list > > {sender_host_address}{+large_messages}...} > > That's on the wishlist. > > match_ip has been added for the 4.52 release. Cool. That's already a st

Re: [exim] High Perf server

Michael Haardt wrote: > But I take it, disk transfers are not a problem for anybody else > here. Wow, hold it! :o) I'd like to second your statements. Exim is hitting our disks quite hard, and actually now (since implementation of a better DB-query-cache) exims queue handling is the thing I dislik

Re: [exim] Phishing Targets

* Marc Perkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050630 00:42]: wrote: > I'm trying a new trick to get rid of phishing email. Basically I'm > testing to verify that the sender's domain is somewhere in the received > lines. For example all paypal email comes from paypal servers

Re: [exim] High Perf server - was (exim allowed someone to slam my mail server for 3 hours)

> If you are going for serious throughput optimisation then exim is > probably the wrong place to start - in many cases the vast majority of > messages could be switched through a box without touching the disk at > all (you would hold off acknowledging the incoming message until the > next hop had

[exim] Automatically dropping back to "smarthost" when relaying is rejected?

I'm using the Debian exim4-daemon-light and related packages (version 4.50-8). At the moment I have routers configured as follows to deal with dynamic IP blacklists. problematic: driver = manualroute headers_add = X-Warning: Your organization's mailrouter has been deliberately

Re: [exim] Eximstats 1.42

* Steve Campbell wrote (28/06/2005 21:59): > Eximstats 1.42 is now ready for release. It incorporates several changes > as requested by Marc Sherman: > > 2005-06-03 V1.40 Steve Campbell > Whilst parsing the mainlog(s), store information about > the messages in a has

Re: [exim] High Perf server

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:43:46PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote: > Don't forget that SMTP requires implementations to make commitments > about how reliably they can process message transactions. I wrote about a queue that does things with less disk transfers, not less reliably. Commercial MTAs have

Re: [exim] silly avoidance of well accepted standards...

On 6/30/05, Greg A. Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A.8. The Dangers of Header Bloat ... are nothing compared to the mailing list archive and general inbox bloat that the Greg A Woods troll is causing regularly. He's not an Exim user, he doesn't contribute anything useful whatsoever to any dis

Re: [exim] helo_data and callouts

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Paul Makepeace wrote: > Is there a workaround? Where does exim get its HELO name from in the > case of callouts? The smtp_active_hostname option. -- Philip HazelUniversity of Cambridge Computing Service, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 122