On 2006-04-03, Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>>
>> That provider adds header to every message with its abuse@ address and
>> my (authenticated) userid for its service. That should be good
>> enough.
>
> If it doesn't prevent you from spoofing someone else's return add
Adam Funk wrote:
>
> That provider adds header to every message with its abuse@ address and
> my (authenticated) userid for its service. That should be good
> enough.
If it doesn't prevent you from spoofing someone else's return address
and thus spamming them with bounces, it isn't.
- Marc
--
On 2006-04-01, Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The behaviour you've just described is called "Sender Address Forgery".
> You happen to be forging your own work address, which you do
> legitimately control, but your ISP has no way of knowing that fact, and
> by rights should be blocking
Adam Funk wrote:
>
> As I understand it, the MAIL FROM address is what ends up in the
> Sender: header and is where bounces go, right? So I'd rather not have
> my mailhub modifying it. When I send an e-mail from home with my work
> address in the From: header, for example, I want any bounces to
On 2006-04-01, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've already been forced to pay for an outbound mail service because
>> of RBL hell and my ISP's irresponsibility for providing outgoing SMTP.
>>
>>
>
> "RBL hell" is generally *earned* when one sets up an MTA w/o
> fixed IP and proper DNS
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2006-03-31, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*trim*
If you weren't running a 'home Exim' at all, but simply had
multiple accounts set up in your MUA, each account would seek to
>
I've also got mail coming from cron jobs, logcheck and scripts, all of
which expect
On 2006-03-31, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To do that I'd have to configure my home Exim to route mail
>> differently according to the From-address,
>
> Trivial in Exim - very many 'home users' of Exim do this.
I know, but it was the next part that bugged me.
>> and I'd have to st
On 2006-03-31, W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> To do that I'd have to configure my home Exim to route mail
>> differently according to the From-address,
> If you weren't running a 'home Exim' at all, but simply had
> multiple accounts set up in your MUA, each account would seek to
> c
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2006-03-31, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you should be sending your mail via your work's authenticated SMTP
relay (and yes, I'm aware they probably don't run one :). This is a
requirement anyway if your work published SPF records for the domain.
To do
On 3/31/06 1:32 AM, "Jeremy Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With auth, yes, accept-then-bounce is permissable (but still
> suboptimal, I think. I prefer, as a user, an instant error
> to my mistyping a destination address. As a networking engineer
> I prefer the fewer number of connections)
On 31/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-31, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think you should be sending your mail via your work's authenticated SMTP
> > relay (and yes, I'm aware they probably don't run one :). This is a
> > requirement anyway if your work publ
On 2006-03-31, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should be sending your mail via your work's authenticated SMTP
> relay (and yes, I'm aware they probably don't run one :). This is a
> requirement anyway if your work published SPF records for the domain.
To do that I'd have to
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
As I understand it, the MAIL FROM address is what ends up in the
Sender: header and is where bounces go, right? So I'd rather not have
my mailhub modifying it. When I send an e-mail from home with my work
address in the From: header, for example, I want an
Hello,
Would anyone know of any sample config files or
examples in the docs that show how to properly
implement this? My setup is a smarthost that sends to
another machine with the users in it. Both run the
Exim email server.
Thanks,
Guru
__
Do
On 2006-03-31, Marc Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now when we say "senders' addresses", which headers are we talking
>> about? For example, I send mails from my home computer with various
>> from-addresses (mainly one for work and one for personal stuff), none
>> of which is associated wi
Adam Funk wrote:
>
> Now when we say "senders' addresses", which headers are we talking
> about? For example, I send mails from my home computer with various
> from-addresses (mainly one for work and one for personal stuff), none
> of which is associated with my ISP.
Either MAIL FROM, verified o
--On 31 March 2006 10:32:24 +0100 Jeremy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With auth, yes, accept-then-bounce is permissable (but still
suboptimal, I think. I prefer, as a user, an instant error
to my mistyping a destination address. As a networking engineer
I prefer the fewer number of con
On 31/03/06, Jeremy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>>We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary
> >>>destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time,
> >>>because it can deliver a bounce to the known sender if it's unable to
> >>>deliver
Peter Bowyer wrote:
We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary
destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time,
because it can deliver a bounce to the known sender if it's unable to
deliver a message.
Which known sender would this be?
The one which it authen
On 31/03/06, Jeremy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
> >>I disagree. It should.
> >
> >
> > We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary
> > destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time,
> > because it can deliver a bounce to the known send
Peter Bowyer wrote:
I disagree. It should.
We're talking about an outbound relay sending to arbitrary
destinations, with verified senders. Callouts are a waste of time,
because it can deliver a bounce to the known sender if it's unable to
deliver a message.
Which known sender would this be?
On 31/03/06, Jeremy Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Bowyer wrote:
> > On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
> >>smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
> >>IP range it's sup
Peter Bowyer wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover,
That part it what it shouldn't do. By all means re
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
> > community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
> > assume that none of them is forging its send
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right, it wouldn't use callouts. But instead, it has a closed
> community of known senders for whom it relays, and it can safely
> assume that none of them is forging its sender address - so if it gets
> a rejection on a relayed messa
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
> >> >> MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
> >> >
> >> > MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients i
--On 30 March 2006 17:18:21 +0100 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use D
--On 30 March 2006 16:49:11 +0100 Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local recip
--On 30 March 2006 16:16:09 +0100 Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configur
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Adam Funk wrote:
I'm thinking of MTA(n-1) as a department's outgoinggmailhub or ISP's
smarthost. It's usually configured to accept anything from within the
IP range it's supposed to cover, and use DNS MX to pick MTA(n) for
non-local recipients.
It's also worth considering
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
>> >> MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
>> >
>> > MTA(n-1) shouldn't accept messages to invalid recipients in the first
>> > place. If it has no direct knowledge of vali
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA w
On 2006-03-30, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
>> > reject
>> > a message destined for a non-existent
On 30/03/06, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
> > reject
> > a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
> > then
> > generate
Adam Funk wrote:
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA(n-1) is trying to relay,
MTA(n-1) has to bounce it, right?
Which in turn is why MTA(n-1) should be doing recipient-verify callouts.
-Jeremy
--
## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http
On 2006-03-30, Nigel Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That only works for mis-configured MTAs. A properly configured MTA would
> reject
> a message destined for a non-existent recipient. It would not accept it and
> then
> generate a bounce message.
But when MTA(n) rejects a message that MTA
36 matches
Mail list logo
