re's no reason it
should allow some unskilled person to try to force it to use what might
be an invalid name.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECT
nd how well you think the reverse DNS can be used to
authenticate hostnames.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMA
er on the public
Internet.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## List details at http
mail it
sends are internal system reports which are sent to a host with which it
already has a known trust relationship. :-)
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix,
iteral address that matches its source address.
There are no ifs, ands, or buts here -- and never have been.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PR
one of those people in the first
group.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-
east the name in the PTR is valid.
$ host -v -A 207.58.151.96
Query about 207.58.151.96 for record types PTR
Address 207.58.151.96 maps to hostname buffy.ms.cx
Found 1 hostname for 207.58.151.96
Checking buffy.ms.cx address 207.58.151.96
--
ssages get read.
So, padding a spammer's address list with every possible postmaster
address creates a lot more income for the spammer.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
about envelope sender addresses -- they're about the client
IP address.
Unless you're thinking of basing your whitelist on the sender address,
which would be a really stupid idea in my estimation since that's just
as easily forged.
--
to block everything from their domain but the one list you
"need" to accept (and maybe their postmaster(s)).
However if/when they start sending you spam by biasing it with the same
sender address of the list you "need" to accept from them, well you'll
eit
uot;%ld"
#endif
and then in the code:
printf("off_t value is: " MY_OFF_T_FMT ".\n", (off_t) foo);
(BTW, ``Just say NO to operating systems with "LARGE FILE SUPPORT"''
What a stupid idea that was just to appease the bass-ackwards ABI
nutcases.
ings in the manner I suggested. Such a configuration script could
also discover and provide appropriate macros and similar if any of the
expected ones are not found in .
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP Robo
damage to e-mail
reliability and if this practice persists it will completely destroy the
public's already poor perception of e-mail usability and utility.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL
urse, but that's the problem -- their outbound mail goes
out through any number of different ISPs, and they _never_ see any
bounces.
--
Greg A. Woods
Planix, Inc.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +1 416
[ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 06:20:08 (+0100), Peter Bowyer wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are
> refusingbounces...
>
> Greg A. Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An extremely large number of domains fronted by Exim are now refu
[ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 09:39:43 (-0700), Fred Viles wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> On 17 Jun 2005 at 0:03, Greg A. Woods wrote about
> "[exim] a large number of domains fr":
>
> |.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/
x27;t be rejected.
However I did say "valid bounces" should not so easily be rejected.
That's 100% consistent with rejecting junk to the postmaster too.
Pay attention Randy! ;-)
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-
ake this error quite so easy and enticing.
That said though, if the really big culprit here is only cPanel then
they deserve even more ire, fire, and flame, but correcting the fault in
Exim that makes this so easy would still help force them to at least see
the error of their ways.
--
to their hosted domain and so their bounces
must still be delivered off-site to servers that refuse to accept them.
We could try to force these users to retrieve mail from their local
mailboxes too, but you know how well that'll fly (not at all)
--
ng there may be regarded as desirable!
Hmmm I hadn't heard of that yet. I don't quite see how this helps
the ones who want to be listed either
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROT
and may
safely be rejected (since they're not deliverable anyway), as perhaps
are those containing known junk content, etc.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <
[ On Friday, June 17, 2005 at 13:14:57 (-0700), Fred Viles wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> On 17 Jun 2005 at 15:18, Greg A. Woods wrote about
> "Re: [exim] a large number of domain":
> |
>
attacking some new domain you
haven't set up special checks for. Furthermore this whitelist is an
ever-decreasing list since clue does eventuallyspread to the ignorant,
especially if you give it a little push every once in a while.
--
Greg A. Woods
[ On Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 23:34:38 (+0100), Chris Edwards wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> | [*] that's not to say that all error messages must be accept
[ On Friday, June 24, 2005 at 14:36:57 (+0200), Jakob Hirsch wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> Greg A. Woods wrote:
> >
> > However if messages would be accepted from the client for "valid"
&g
any problem then
you're using the wrong protocol from the get go.
On the other how you deal with your own double bounces on your end is
your own business (though if you delete them unconditionally as one
other poster does then your users have my sympathy and I do not approve).
--
")
would result in a syntax error:
"$the_null_return_path special token used in an invalid context."
There are no shortage of ways to make error handling more robust despite
the intentions of ignorant and mis-informed admins who would try to
break it, despite the desire to hav
rsight of the
worst kind and it will always lead to thoughput bottlenecks.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the
[ On Saturday, June 25, 2005 at 11:57:43 (+0100), Philip Hazel wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: [exim] a large number of domains fronted by Exim are refusing
> bounces...
>
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> > However if those addresses do exist then they _MUST_ acce
ss that will be
returned to the same user.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## List details at http://www.ex
fact that a message has arrived with a null return-path
to block that message.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
age to
> anyone, and never directly receives a message (aliases and all that).
If root doesn't receive messages then block _all_ messages to root
regardless of what sender address they arrive with (e.g. if they're not
delivered by a command-line agent running on the localhost).
--
e to
be delivered to the intended recipients.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## List details at http://www
training. You can't RFC against
> stupidity.
The point is that one can build implementations of standard protocols in
such a way that the users of those implementations cannot easily ignore
the rules defined by the protocol standard.
--
llow the RFC-suggested
protocol for doing so and set your reply-to address to be the list
address. It works for everyone else, including both Philip and myself.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[E
Cyrus IMAP) works very well for me
as well. ;-)
I do like having multiple levels of defenses, especially against my own
mistakes! ;-)
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pl
operation is a far
worse sin than living in the past.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTE
long been quite adamant that "reply-to" is more than
sufficient for all the needs folks like you have mumbled on about over
the years. Get with the program Steve. If anyone's living in the past
here, you are. Silly and serious attempts alike to replace "reply-to"
all died
ress anyway -- it's provided
by the sender and received over the network in a clear and
un-authenticated and un-trustable channel.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Plan
y to configure incorrectly, and Exim also
suffers from being extremely obtuse and hard to use on the SMTP side.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECT
[ 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
I don't know how well
qmail users do because I don't dare talk to any of them about e-mail
issues :-) If Exim is so great and so flexible then Exim users should
be able to do better than all the rest of us combined, and still without
having to ever use the null sender address in their c
r sends
> out
> mail, so he will never get valid mail from <>.
MDNs are in fact (usually) valid e-mail from <>, even though they are
sent on behalf of the original recipient.
> And please stop CCing me, I'm on the list.
Please use reply-to properly if you want to avoid CC
wider peer pressure will have to be brought to bear; i.e. there
are apparently still more Exim users yet to be listed on
dsn.rfc-ignorant.org.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTE
ating it, while spiting all the correctly functioning software,
just makes it more painful and for far longer)
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
e careful not to mis-identify
anything which is not junk (.e. take a look at some similar non-junk
messages and see if you can figure out why you think they're not junk).
There you go. That's all there is to it. This isn't rocket science. :-)
--
xcuse my obvious Exim ignorance, but what does that part do exactly,
and why is it there?
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secret
the right tool and you won't end up with black-and-blue fingers, or
far worse! :-)
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
--
## Li
.
> and I disabled Ident.
If your client has nothing listening on the IDENT port than that won't
matter either.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAI
[ On Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 22:39:19 (-0700), .|MoNK|Cucumber . wrote: ]
> Subject: FW: Re: [exim] Easy Disclaimers with Exim?
>
> >From: "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Greg A. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "
time,
but rather just that should such synchronisation fail there's still a
chance of correlating logs between foreign systems if IDENT is used.
--
Greg A. Woods
H:+1 416 218-0098 W:+1 416 489-5852 x122 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
52 matches
Mail list logo
