On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:23:38 -0400 Aaron Wolfe wrote:
>
.
>
> Last I checked into this issue, the RFCs do not explicitly allow or
> disallow multiple PTRs. This translated to inconsistent behavior in
> the real world as some resolvers can understand them and some can't.
> Unless things have
I may just be missing this somewhere, but has anyone put together a
collection of ratelimit examples that are actually used in production?
--
--EAL--
--
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki w
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:01:41 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
.
>
> It should not be as easy for an attack to suceed as you claim - your
> authentication may have holes in it.
>
Bill,
Just as a note, one of the "new" things that spammers have figured out
is to use the account settings as defined in
On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:15:44 +0100 "Hill Ruyter" Wrote:
>>snip snip<<
> I run my own email server at home on an Ubuntu box
> I have done many things to adhere to commonly accepted standards I have
> a static IP
> My ISP has set my PTR for me
This is all that is necessary to be a legit mail serv
exim list subscriber wrote:
>
> On the off chance that some folks may find this useful...
>
> The site here is making a move to have MUA clients use the MSA port,
> rather than using the regular SMTP port. To get a handle on laggards, we
> wanted to get some kind of ACL to detect a MUA when it co
Jethro R Binks wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> Slightly at a tangent to the main thrust of Tony's message, but related
> to these same blank messages. I was contemplating the wisdom of
> refusing a message that contains none of To:, Cc:, Subject:, Date:,
> From: headers.
>
> Recognising that Date: and F
".|MoNK|Cucumber ." wrote:
>
> The lot of you that choose to argue and insult those that wish to use
> appended disclaimers/footers are merely wasting peoples time.
> The fact of the matter is that companies do use disclaimers/footers, and
> it was a simple question regarding if it was possible wi
Claus Assmann wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> I'm not questioning that. It's maybe just a bit "nit picking": the error
> message is misleading as it is not a _violation_ of RFC 2821.
How is it "nit picking" or misleading?
The nature of the SMTP client is to connect to the server, and then see
if that c
John Horne wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> My concern is that a sending site may well want to secure their MS
> servers as much as possible (understatement??), and that includes no
> external access to its DNS zone if the records are only used by their
> own users/servers. As such I suspect this (SRV loo
John Horne wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> In trying it out on one of our mailhubs I have already hit a problem
> with 2 sites. I'm not sure but it seems that MS Windows servers uses
> the, for example, '_tcp.plym.ac.uk' domain in dealing with ADS/accounts
> (maybe?). Access to the domain may well be res
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> does anyone know how other servers react to being rejected and having
> the connection dropped in the pre-DATA phase?
Can't comment on specific servers but long ago I moved from drop to deny
and removed and delay's that i used to use, I found that doi
Fred Viles wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2005 at 14:49, Edgar Lovecraft wrote about
> "Re: [exim] Bogus HELOs":
>
> | Fred Viles wrote:
> |...
> | > ISTM the point, which is not aimed at you in particular, is: Please
> | > don't feed the troll. No matter
Fred Viles wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2005 at 1:22, Edgar Lovecraft wrote about
> "Re: [exim] Bogus HELOs":
>
> |...
> | I did not make any comments on the HELO/EHLO hostname thing this time,
> | a rarity for me I know, so send that post to those who did.
>
>
John W. Baxter wrote:
>
> On 5/24/05 5:19 PM, "Edgar Lovecraft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gary Allen Vollink wrote:
> >>
> > ..[snip]...
> >>
> >> Valid excuse, as in - "I plugged it in and the default settings
> already &
Gary Allen Vollink wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> Valid excuse, as in - "I plugged it in and the default settings already
> work?" (The mantra of the Windows admin).
NOT the mantra of the Windows admin.
IS the mantra of the "I don't care" or the "underqualified"
or the "uneducated" admin.
>
..
Marc Sherman wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> > This is not going to be 'scientifically' accurate by any means, a
> > better solution would be to take into account individual posters..,
I have now redone the counts in a much more 'scientific' format
> > but this should give a good feel of the MUA's used,
"Fred Viles" wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> | BTW, the raw archives appear to be available at
> | http://www.exim.org/mail-archives/exim-users/Week-of-*.txt.gz
>
> Indeed, that would have been a better source of raw data. Maybe
> someone else would like to take a crack with it? ;)
Sure...
A few not
G W wrote:
>
> Thx to you all.
>
> i finally make it work .. but i dunno what i've done (if i recall, i
> post to this thread later)
> i think it's because of my "non-systematic" testing
>
> Plus, the MUA no longer have to select the "smpt passwd" box and enter
> password twice.
Then the client
G W wrote:
>
> > emulation...?
>
> No. just curious why 2 MUAs behave the same regarding to authentication.
> there're several authenticators and i guess that different MUA will use
> different one if appropriate to use.
Perhaps it would be better if you could tell us exactly how the
sendmail a
Matt Fretwell wrote:
>
..[snip]...
>
> Edgar Lovecraft wrote:
>
> > > BZT! Not a Cisco firewall with SMTP fixup running? That will get
> > > in the way. It's very broken. Turn it off.
> >
> > Only as a side note, not to bring bout discussion
Peter Bowyer wrote:
>
..[snip]...
> >
> > FYI, the EXIM server is behind cisco firewall but leave all relevant
> > ports open (25, 110, 143, ...).
>
> BZT! Not a Cisco firewall with SMTP fixup running? That will get in
> the way. It's very broken. Turn it off.
Only as a side note, not to bri
21 matches
Mail list logo
