On 14 Nov 2005 at 12:54, Exim User wrote about
"Re: [exim] Seeking advice how to de":
| In my rcpt acl I already use:
|
| dropmessage= Recipient unknown
| !verify= recipient
| delay = ${eval: ($rcpt_fail_count + 1) * 1}m
No accepts higher up?
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Troy Settle wrote:
> How can I get these errors into the 550 response back to the peer?
Well, you need to set
smtp_return_error_details = true
in the main configuration. But I have a recollection that there are
still some situations where the error details don't appear i
On Monday 14 November 2005 15:08, Troy Settle wrote:
> How can I get these errors into the 550 response back to the peer? I
> know that not all MTAs will share the 550's with their clients, but
> for those that do, it'd be most helpful to have a more descriptive
> explanation as to why their mail
All,
In the reject log, I get a really nice error that shows why mail is
rejected:
... rejected after DATA: domain missing or malformed: failing address in
"To" header is: Support <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... rejected after DATA: "@" or "." expected after
"Undisclosed-Recipient": failing address
Ian Eiloart wrote:
Ah! I didn't realise that. I guess that has the disadvantage that good
recipients get dropped with the bad ones, so if I send email to three
people in the same domain, and one is undeliverable, then the other two
don't get it either. Great for spam, but bad for genuine
On 14 Nov 2005, at 12:06, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
Off topic, but i think someone could help me:
an user in my domain passed away yesteday.
What is the best way to cope with it.
she used her personal office e-mail address to receive
correpondence for
all the group, so forwarding to her substit
On 14 Nov 2005, at 13:00, Marc Sherman wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
I'm not sure about that, but "drop" doesn't seem very polite
here. Better to do a 5xx reject, so that genuine errors don't
stick on sending servers. The vast majority of mail that sticks
in my queues does so because it ca
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> Off topic, but i think someone could help me:
> an user in my domain passed away yesteday.
> What is the best way to cope with it.
> she used her personal office e-mail address to receive correpondence for
> all the group, so forwarding to her substi
Ian Eiloart wrote:
I'm not sure about that, but "drop" doesn't seem very polite here.
Better to do a 5xx reject, so that genuine errors don't stick on
sending servers. The vast majority of mail that sticks in my queues
does so because it can't be delivered to an address with a typo in it.
On 14 Nov 2005, at 11:54, Exim User wrote:
In my rcpt acl I already use:
dropmessage= Recipient unknown
!verify= recipient
delay = ${eval: ($rcpt_fail_count + 1) * 1}m
And later on:
accept local_parts= postmaster
domains= +local_d
Exim User wrote:
Just the same here and a lot of them.
My special problem: The faked addresses are non existant, and I get the
following frozen messages from my own mailer-daemon for every single bounce:
Message IPU3LU-00078D-LK has been frozen (delivery error message).
The sender is <>.
T
Just the same here and a lot of them.
My special problem: The faked addresses are non existant, and I get the
following frozen messages from my own mailer-daemon for every single bounce:
>Message IPU3LU-00078D-LK has been frozen (delivery error message).
>The sender is <>.
>The following address(
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Leonardo Boselli wrote:
> > Such departmental servers have a much higher reliability then central
> > ones, so people prefer to stay there.
> I suggest that you tell your managers that your users will not follow
> their policy until they
Exim User wrote:
Just the same here and a lot of them.
My special problem: The faked addresses are non existant, and I get the
following frozen messages from my own mailer-daemon for every single bounce:
Message IPU3LU-00078D-LK has been frozen (delivery error message).
The sender is <>.
T
Off topic, but i think someone could help me:
an user in my domain passed away yesteday.
What is the best way to cope with it.
she used her personal office e-mail address to receive correpondence for
all the group, so forwarding to her substitute would expose to a leak of
personal correspondence,
In my rcpt acl I already use:
dropmessage= Recipient unknown
!verify= recipient
delay = ${eval: ($rcpt_fail_count + 1) * 1}m
And later on:
accept local_parts= postmaster
domains= +local_domains
Do you think the above one causes the t
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 12:20 +0100, Exim User wrote:
> Looks like I'm not the only one weird by this?
> To get things clear, this is the process as it explores to me:
>
> Somebody sends spam with a faked sender of my domain.
> This spam bounces back to my mailserver (Exim 4.5.1).
Ideally this stuf
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Exim User wrote:
> My special problem: The faked addresses are non existant,
Seems normal to me. Aren't you verifying the recipient to reject such
bounces?
> My ACL already uses
> require verify = header_syntax
> !verify = header_sender
What's that got to do with verifyin
Looks like I'm not the only one weird by this?
To get things clear, this is the process as it explores to me:
Somebody sends spam with a faked sender of my domain.
This spam bounces back to my mailserver (Exim 4.5.1).
Example here:
--
> Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Nov 2
Many thanks, I'll make use of it.
-a
--
Aaron Stromas | "Tik-tik-tik!!!... ja, Pantani is weg..."
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | BRTN commentator
+1 (301) 493 4933 | L'Alpe d'Huez
http://www.izoard.com | 19
20 matches
Mail list logo
