On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:47:46AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Peter van Dijk writes:
ORBS does not list a machine until it has received a relayed test
message.
Then why does Alan suggest that qmail is an open relay by default
simply because its smtp server accepts more mail than it
"Petr Novotny" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:12, Peter van Dijk wrote:
The only correct choice is 1. If your customer has an open relay, block
them on your own smarthost until they fix their problem.
Oh thanks. In other words, you're giving me the following
Peter van Dijk writes:
ORBS does not list a machine until it has received a relayed test
message.
Then why does Alan suggest that qmail is an open relay by default
simply because its smtp server accepts more mail than it will deliver?
Why would he care?
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What a mail admin chooses to do with is ORBS information is up to him,
and he may ignore some or all listings ORBS give out for "admin refused".
How can I set up my filters to just use "really open relay" info from
ORBS and throw away "admin refused" unknows?
You have seen the other zone
AFAIK all mailserver are required to have an A record,
they are also required to have an RDNS matching "this" A record.
This A record then becomes one of the possible domains to reach the mailserver,
which RFC 822 requires to have a postmaster@domain (domain being RDNS).
Where do you see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6 Jun 00, at 11:56, OK 2 NET - Andr Paulsberg wrote:
This seems like a weak excuse, all your interfaces should have
matching RDNS to their main A records and it's sufficient to set this
up once!
Who shall fill in control/locals, should the
This seems like a weak excuse, all your interfaces should have
matching RDNS to their main A records and it's sufficient to set this up once!
Who shall fill in control/locals, should the reverse (outside my control) change?
You, because you choose the mailservers hostname/domain.
Just
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 02:36:24PM -0700,
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I will be able to use them again as I only want to block inputs
and outputs, since the ORBS seems to catch sites faster than the RSS.
That's because RSS
I now understand why I get these messages from ORBS dropped into my
postmaster box.
You will get mail from ORBS in two situations:
- ORBS wants to warn you that they successfully relayed through your
server.
- an ORBS
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite clueful.
I don't believe Alan Brown incompetent, either.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 11:22:51AM -0700, Aaron L. Meehan wrote:
Quoting Peter van Dijk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions
- ORBS blocks "unfriendly" sites criticising ORBS
Is there a site with documentation on this? I'd like to
check it out for myself.
There is a bit more to it then that. Some people who disagree with how the
ORBS is run block their relay tests. The ORBS considers this grounds for
being
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
I now understand why I get these messages from ORBS dropped into my
postmaster box.
In what sense does ORBS think the described behavior of qmail is
insecure?
What problem do they refer to, anyways?
It certainly is annoying to get
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite clueful.
I now understand why I get these messages from ORBS dropped into my
postmaster box.
You will
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite
clueful.
Not to restart another perennial flame-war, but why
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Len Budney wrote:
Not to restart another perennial flame-war, but why then does he
blacklist people who block his probes? Is it really his intention to
provide the service of blacklisting both a) open relays and b) people
who disagree with him?
As the mail admin for a
Forget about ORBS. Anyone using/caring about ORBS should reconsider his decision:
Before giving "judgement" over ORBS, please understand what they are doing
and the possible effects (both good and bad) for "you" as a mail admin.
- ORBS blocks "unfriendly" sites criticising ORBS
You should
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 12:06:55PM -0400, Len Budney wrote:
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0500, Mate Wierdl wrote:
More evidence that the person running ORBS is incompetent.
He's not. I've spoken to him on several occasions and he is quite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 18:13, IDG New Media Support - Andr Paulsberg wrote:
What a mail admin chooses to do with is ORBS information is up to him,
and he may ignore some or all listings ORBS give out for "admin
refused".
How can I set up my filters to
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:13:57PM +0200, IDG New Media Support - André Paulsberg
wrote:
Forget about ORBS. Anyone using/caring about ORBS should reconsider his decision:
Before giving "judgement" over ORBS, please understand what they are doing
and the possible effects (both good and bad)
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
That is impossible. ORBS does not list a machine until it has received a
relayed test message. If you know of any false positives, let me know too
and I'd be happy to investigate. I have had several people run to me and
say 'ORBS listed me but I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 18:28, Peter van Dijk wrote:
- ORBS has IMHO too much false positives
That is impossible. ORBS does not list a machine until it has received
a relayed test message.
Second (or higher) level relay _is_ a false positive. My ISP
My 2 rappen/centimes:
Second (or higher) level relay _is_ a false positive.
No it's not - positive is positive. You provide relaying or you
don't. Are you or are you not responsible for maintaining some standard of
net ethics?
My ISP has
been listed recently because they're doing a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:01, Will Harris wrote:
No - advise them of their problem, and suspend mail service until they have
fixed their faulty servers.
Most ISPs have contracts with their network customers explicity forbidding
spamming of any
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:21:10PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
[snip]
On 5 Jun 00, at 18:13, IDG New Media Support - André Paulsberg wrote:
What a mail admin chooses to do with is ORBS information is up to him,
and he may ignore some or all listings ORBS give out for "admin
refused".
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 06:36:04PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
[snip]
On 5 Jun 00, at 18:28, Peter van Dijk wrote:
- ORBS has IMHO too much false positives
That is impossible. ORBS does not list a machine until it has received
a relayed test message.
Second (or higher) level
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:06:58PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
[snip]
I have yet to see a contract saying "Thou shalt not run an open
relay."
Our contracts with CoLo's do, implicitly or explicitly. We are allowed to
block port 25 towards colo's (and we do) if we hear about an open relay.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:12, Peter van Dijk wrote:
The only correct choice is 1. If your customer has an open relay, block
them on your own smarthost until they fix their problem.
Oh thanks. In other words, you're giving me the following
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:20:05PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:12, Peter van Dijk wrote:
The only correct choice is 1. If your customer has an open relay, block
them on your own smarthost until they fix their problem.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:27, Peter van Dijk wrote:
If one of your customers runs an open relay, you should force your customer
into fixing it, or make sure yourself that they can't cause any damage.
Open relays found by spammers tend to cause great
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:36:43PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
[snip]
On 5 Jun 00, at 19:27, Peter van Dijk wrote:
If one of your customers runs an open relay, you should force your customer
into fixing it, or make sure yourself that they can't cause any damage.
Open relays found by
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 09:13:24AM -0700,
Ryan Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view. The ORBS guys want
to list relays. The run across an address block that has a number of open
relays, and the adminitrators of that block aren't responsive
Except that sites that block probes rather than fix open relays really
belong in a different kind of list. I think the ORBS would be better
off just listing confirmed open relays. If they would do this, a lot
Peter van Dijk confirmed that we are listed in a different category from
regular
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:09:57PM +0200,
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends on your filtering software. It seems djb's rblsmtpd does not
have an option to change this. That sucks. Your choice is hereby reduced
(by DJB, not by any people at ORBS) to 'block everything ORBS
ORBS also lists tarpitting people, although as spam relays they are
unsusable, too.
Anybody clueful enough to do tarpitting should block relaying.
There exists sites which do not have a nice block of IP addresses
which describe all of their valid mail relay users. For such sites,
tarpitting
Bruno Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I will be able to use them again as I only want to block inputs
and outputs, since the ORBS seems to catch sites faster than the RSS.
That's because RSS requires evidence that the relay is actually being
abused, whereas ORBS will list any machine
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 03:17:06PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 07:09:57PM +0200,
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That depends on your filtering software. It seems djb's rblsmtpd does not
have an option to change this. That sucks. Your choice is hereby
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 05:19:49PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
ORBS also lists tarpitting people, although as spam relays they are
unsusable, too.
Anybody clueful enough to do tarpitting should block relaying.
There exists sites which do not have a nice block of IP addresses
which
There exists sites which do not have a nice block of IP addresses
which describe all of their valid mail relay users. For such sites,
tarpitting is a much better solution than relay blocking. MIT is one
of them (many of its mail relay users are customers of random outside
ISPs),
The amount of
Bruno Wolff III:
Except that sites that block probes rather than fix open relays really
belong in a different kind of list. I think the ORBS would be better
off just listing confirmed open relays. If they would do this, a lot
yes, this makes sense.
--
clemens
Rodrigo Severo writes:
I was looking at ORBS page about MTAs vulnerabilities and found this
about qmail:
-
Qmail admins: Qmail's current version is insecure by default. Most
admins know enough to follow the instructions for
I was looking at ORBS page about MTAs vulnerabilities and found this
about qmail:
-
Qmail admins: Qmail's current version is insecure by default. Most
admins know enough to follow the instructions for securing it before
putting qmail into
On Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 10:27:40AM -0300, Rodrigo Severo wrote:
I was looking at ORBS page about MTAs vulnerabilities and found this
about qmail:
Forget about ORBS. Anyone using/caring about ORBS should reconsider
his decision:
- ORBS blocks "unfriendly" sites criticising ORBS
- ORBS does not
Markus Stumpf wrote:
- ORBS blocks "unfriendly" sites criticising ORBS
Is there a site with documentation on this? I'd like to
check it out for myself.
- ORBS does not notify blocked sites about the blockage
- ORBS has IMHO too much false positives
I've experienced at least one
44 matches
Mail list logo
