--On Thursday, April 20, 2006 0:00 +0200 Jan Pieter Cornet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:34:19PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
But since I'm submitting on port 465 with authentication, and
not on port 25... it doesn't make sense to make certain blanket
tests that
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 03:34:19PM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> But since I'm submitting on port 465 with authentication, and
> not on port 25... it doesn't make sense to make certain blanket
> tests that would be applied to all "outside" mail.
What I do in this case is make some tests optio
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Would it be easier to have to sendmail instances, one that
> listens on 465 for authenticated email only
587 would be the canonical port, but yes...
> and then requeues it locally by passing it onto the "primary"
> instance of sendmail, which would apply mimedefang+spa
I've been thinking about this issue some more, and was
wondering...
Would it be easier to have to sendmail instances, one that
listens on 465 for authenticated email only, and then requeues
it locally by passing it onto the "primary" instance of sendmail,
which would apply mimedefang+spamassassin
On 19 Apr 2006 at 8:47, Adam Lanier wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:20 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> > So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is
> > essentially
> > useless.
> >
>
> Beat that dead horse, David!
To be honest, because of the fact that you can't trul
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 08:20 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is essentially
> useless.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
Beat that dead horse, David!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> At the moment that the HELO is sent... Has a queue-id even been
> assigned?
Nope.
> If not, then how do you figure out which command file
> to read?
You can't.
So you need to do the checks in filter_sender, and filter_helo is essentially
useless.
Regards,
David.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 12:11:20AM -0600, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I'd rather continue to do the helo checks in filter_helo()... it keeps the
> code more manageable.
Of course, nothing is stopping you from adding a
my_filter_helo($ip, $hostname, $helo)
as the first line of your filter_sender.
David F. Skoll wrote:
>>Except that read_commands_file isn't working. I'm seeing:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Apr 18 16:26:28 mail mimedefang[11357]: Error from multiplexor: error:
>>Cannot open COMMANDS file from mimedefang: No such file or directory
>>
>>
>
>Ah! I knew I had another reason for not
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Except that read_commands_file isn't working. I'm seeing:
> Apr 18 16:26:28 mail mimedefang[11357]: Error from multiplexor: error:
> Cannot open COMMANDS file from mimedefang: No such file or directory
Ah! I knew I had another reason for not implementing filter_helo
On Apr 18, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
Or else should I add logic to skip this test in mimedefang-filter
(for filter_helo()) when authentication is set?
That sounds like a good idea. Sendmail sets a macro for
authenticat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philip Prindeville wrote:
I'm submitting from a host behind a NATed gateway, so the
address that my machine things it is using when it says "HELO
[x.x.x.x.x]" if different from that which my local server is seeing.
Hmmm... I would say if at least one of the app
Philip Prindeville wrote:
> I'm submitting from a host behind a NATed gateway, so the
> address that my machine things it is using when it says "HELO
> [x.x.x.x.x]" if different from that which my local server is seeing.
Hmmm... I would say if at least one of the apparent or HELO IPs is private,
13 matches
Mail list logo
