On 30 Oct 2004 at 0:16, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > ...and the RFC pretty clearly says that an IP address should *never* be
> > used as the argument to HELO, so that rule *should* reject all e-mail.
>
> Umm... reread his code.
Maybe you should?
This is his test:
if ($ip ne $helo)
$ip is *alway
Am Sa, den 30.10.2004 schrieb Kevin A. McGrail um 5:29:
> > To speak freely, a
> > mail server administrator who does not setup his server
> > properly, means the server hostname / IP fits both the
> > forward and reverse DNS entries, is responsible himself if
> > his wrong setup leads to reje
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Mike Atkinson wrote:
> 2 of them are adding an X-Scanned-By header with 127.0.0.1 showing as
> the IP in the header while the other 2 are showing the correct IP that
> the message was received on.
Do the two that think they're 127.0.0.1 have proper host names that resolve
to
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Jeff Rife wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2004 at 15:01, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> > > elsif ($ip ne $helo){
> > > return ('REJECT', "You are not who you say you are.")
> > > }
> >
> > That will reject 99.999% of all your e-mail. Most machines use the
> > m
> To speak freely, a
> mail server administrator who does not setup his server
> properly, means the server hostname / IP fits both the
> forward and reverse DNS entries, is responsible himself if
> his wrong setup leads to rejected mails.
I disagree whole-heartedly with this statement. Virt
Am Fr, den 29.10.2004 schrieb Yang Xiao um 18:10:
> Won't this check generate a lot of false positive if the sending host
> has a hostname that's different from it's public DNS name? I have had
> several mailhost like this in places I've worked before, it's not
> because we are lazy or careless, b
On 29 Oct 2004 at 15:01, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > elsif ($ip ne $helo){
> > return ('REJECT', "You are not who you say you are.")
> > }
>
> That will reject 99.999% of all your e-mail. Most machines use the
> machine name in HELO, not an IP address, so...
...and
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, David Hiebert wrote:
> I was more concerned with the first problem/question though. No matter
> how I format the return('REJECT'), the $msg isn't passed to sendmail.
That's odd; it works for me. Are you going by Sendmail logs, or actually
telnetting in on port 25 to simulat
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, David F. Skoll wrote:
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:41:44 -0400 (EDT)
> From: David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Mimedefang] filter_relay
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, David Hiebert wrote:
>
> > My second question
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, David Hiebert wrote:
> My second question/problem is the 3 commented out lines. The man page for
> mimedefang-filter indicates that if an IP has no reverse dns, then
> $hostname is a duplicate of $hostip. This then should make a real quick
> and easy check for no reverse, ho
I am attempting to reject mail for ip's with no reverse DNS (not
mismatched forward/reverse.) The below filter_relay works, however it is
not passing the $msg for return(REJECT) to sendmail (or maybe sendmail
isn't picking it up?) The maillog reports: "sm-mta[82794]:
i9U00cCx082794: Milter: conne
I've got 4 FreeBSD boxes running MIMEDefang. All of them have multiple
IP's assigned.
2 of them are adding an X-Scanned-By header with 127.0.0.1 showing as
the IP in the header while the other 2 are showing the correct IP that
the message was received on.
This is definitely not something to l
Thanks to all for the help.. I've had my head buried in:
RF schematics/Pcb's
HighSpeed Digital schematics/pcb's
Analog op-amp stuff...
Ugh.
My brain is fried.
What's my name again?
;)
___
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca
MIMEDefang
--On Friday, October 29, 2004 2:48 PM -0500 Aleksandar Milivojevic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Funny thing is, I'd wish none of the lists put [list] in Subject. I'm
sorting lists in separate IMAP folders on the server, so it is kind of
reduntant and just wastes the space on the Subject line ;-)
--On Friday, October 29, 2004 2:15 PM -0500 Ben Kamen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since I'm on a couple of lists and wish they'd put [list] in the subject
line (and don't) is there an easy way to do this via MimeDefang? (this
way, every place I look at my mail doesn't have to have duplicate mail
f
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
> > Most of the lists use the header "List-Id:"
> Funny thing is, I'd wish none of the lists put [list] in Subject. I'm
> sorting lists in separate IMAP folders on the server, so it is kind of
> reduntant and just wastes the space on the Subject
Ben Kamen wrote:
Since I'm on a couple of lists and wish they'd put [list] in the subject
line (and don't) is there an easy way to do this via MimeDefang? (this
way, every place I look at my mail doesn't have to have duplicate mail
filter setups.. it would just be done on the server..)
Most of
Since I'm on a couple of lists and wish they'd put [list] in the subject line
(and don't) is there an easy way to do this via MimeDefang? (this way, every
place I look at my mail doesn't have to have duplicate mail filter setups.. it
would just be done on the server..)
Most of the lists use the
--On Friday, October 29, 2004 1:27 PM -0500 Aleksandar Milivojevic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure if you are going to need to reinstall MIMEDefang.
Nope. I install MD by RPM and the RPM is built to disable all virus
scanners. One then selectively enables them in mimedefang-filter by set
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Yang Xiao wrote:
> sub filter_sender {
> my ($sender, $ip, $hostname, $helo) = @_;
> return('CONTINUE', "OK") if ($ip eq "127.0.0.1");
> if ($helo =~ /mydomain\.com$/i) {
> return ('REJECT', "We Don't Like Spammers, Go Away!!!.");
>
While I was running MIMEDefang 2.46, I've noticed in logs that if max
requests per slave is set to 500, that slaves do not exit normally, and
must be killed with SIGTERM ten seconds later. This was happening every
time slave gets to 500 requests and is instructed to exit.
After I decreased it
OK, this what I have came up with so far,.
1. Check for anybody claims to be from mydomain.com in the HELO Line
2. Check for RCPT TO anyone in mydomain.com
3. $helo doesn't match $ip
#***
# %PROCEDURE: filter_recipient
# %DESCRIPT
Mark Osbourne wrote:
From what I can tell, it looks like I probably need to update
/usr/bin/mimedefang.pl and change $Features{'Virus:CLAMD'} so that it is
set to 1 and make sure that the clamd processes is running as the defang
user and writing it's socket in /var/spool/MIMEDefang/clamd.sock.
I'm
On 29 Oct 2004 at 13:03, Rich West wrote:
> In the /etc/sysconfig/mimedefang file, there are the following options:
>
> # If "yes", turn on the multiplexor relay checking function
> # MX_RELAY_CHECK=yes
Calls "filter_relay" in mimedefang-filter, if it exists.
> # If "yes", turn on the multiplex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Davide Vaghetti wrote:
| Do someone know how to the antivirus check before filter_bad_filename() ?
|
the original question was "Do someone know how to execute the antivirus
check before filter_bad_filename() ?"
sorry for the typo
bye
___
In the /etc/sysconfig/mimedefang file, there are the following options:
# If "yes", turn on the multiplexor relay checking function
# MX_RELAY_CHECK=yes
# If "yes", turn on the multiplexor sender checking function
# MX_SENDER_CHECK=yes
# If "yes", turn on the multiplexor recipient checking function
While I know it can be easy to simply block the host, I was wondering
if there was some way to avoid the problem all together by
potentially identifying hosts attempting to overload the server
(Denial Of Service) by throttling down the amount of allowed inbound
connections (from external sourc
At the time I installed MIMEDefang, I wasn't allowed to integrate virus
scanning into the setup since ClamAV wasn't approved software yet (long
story there, lawyers, etc).
Now that I've been given the go ahead to use ClamAV, I've built it for
the mailserver and have it installed (in /usr/local/bin
Kelson wrote:
> Ian Mitchell wrote:
>> Then I would wonder if something along the lines of SPF
>> (spf.pobox.com) would work. I know this method was recently
>> critisized for Microsoft's liscensing methods and such forth.
>
> You're thinking of SenderID, which is a combination of SPF with
> Micro
On 10/29/2004 11:13, Ian Mitchell wrote:
> Then I would wonder if something along the lines of SPF (spf.pobox.com)
> would work. I know this method was recently critisized for Microsoft's
> liscensing methods and such forth.
Having followed that debacle for a while... SPF has nothing to do with
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:42:36 +0200, Alexander Dalloz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Fr, den 29.10.2004 schrieb Yang Xiao um 15:54:
>
> > Hi,
> > I found out that the filter_sender() function will be enabled if I
> > turn the MX_SENDER_CHECK option on. I was just wondering where should
> > I put i
Am Fr, den 29.10.2004 schrieb David F. Skoll um 18:04:
> > sub filter_relay () {
> > my ($ip, $name, $helo, $RelayAddr) = @_;
> Note that recent versions of MIMEDefang don't pass $helo in filter_relay;
> you need to do HELO checks in filter_sender.
> David.
Oops, yes my fault! I am stil
Ian Mitchell wrote:
Then I would wonder if something along the lines of SPF (spf.pobox.com)
would work. I know this method was recently critisized for Microsoft's
liscensing methods and such forth.
You're thinking of SenderID, which is a combination of SPF with
Microsoft's own proposals. SPF itse
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> sub filter_relay () {
> my ($ip, $name, $helo, $RelayAddr) = @_;
Note that recent versions of MIMEDefang don't pass $helo in filter_relay;
you need to do HELO checks in filter_sender.
--
David.
___
Am Fr, den 29.10.2004 schrieb Yang Xiao um 15:54:
> Hi,
> I found out that the filter_sender() function will be enabled if I
> turn the MX_SENDER_CHECK option on. I was just wondering where should
> I put it and how to use it.
For you as a Fedora user it has to be activated in
/etc/sysconfig/mime
Then I would wonder if something along the lines of SPF (spf.pobox.com)
would work. I know this method was recently critisized for Microsoft's
liscensing methods and such forth. And while it's adoption or lack there
of might not allow it to be fully effective (catching people who spoof
yahoo) if
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:33:32 +0200, Paul Pries
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Mitchell wrote:
>
> >>Ok, for something like this, a sample function on the FAQ site that
> >>filters HELO line
> >>
> >>How do I integrate this into the filter file ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure that I would. Sendma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Do someone know how to the antivirus check before filter_bad_filename() ?
thanks in advance
P.S.
maybe this question was made before, but I'm new to this mailing-list
and from the searches I made I cannot find anything related.
- --
Davide Vaghetti
Univ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
MIMEDefang 2.48 is at http://www.mimedefang.org/node.php?id=1
This one finally fixes the silly bugs from 2.46 and 2.47. Honest!
Changelog to 2.45 follows.
Regards,
David.
2004-10-29 David F. Skoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Version 2.4
Ian Mitchell wrote:
Ok, for something like this, a sample function on the FAQ site that
filters HELO line
How do I integrate this into the filter file ?
I'm not sure that I would. Sendmail has the capability to limit
connections based on where the IP's come from (outside of the HELO which
can
> Ok, for something like this, a sample function on the FAQ site that
> filters HELO line
>
> How do I integrate this into the filter file ?
I'm not sure that I would. Sendmail has the capability to limit
connections based on where the IP's come from (outside of the HELO which
can be spoofed). You
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 12:53 +0200, Stefaan Van Hoornick wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I receive following error:
>
> Oct 28 12:51:44 mail sendmail[659]: [ID 801593 mail.error] i9SApiO659: Milter
> (mimedefang): local socket name /var/spool/MIMEDefang/mimedefang.sock unsafe
> Oct 28 12:51:44 mail sendm
Hi,
I've upgraded to MIMEDefang 2.47 I modified mimedefang.pl
And changed $SALocalTestsOnly = 0; and skip_rbl_checks 0
SURBL is still not working, I had 2.45 previously and it worked
Fine. Are there any other changes that need to be made in 2.47?
Thanks
Trevor
_
43 matches
Mail list logo
