>http://maps.vix.com/tsi/new-rlytest.cgi?ADDR=iq-ss5.iquest.net
I wrote that relay tester. It does indeed give false positives for
qmail. It mostly looks for sendmail holes, since that's where most
of the holes are.
One of the things on my list of things to do is to make it look at the
banner
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:36:24 -0500 (CDT), David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>Unfortunately, there is no tool so good and no explanation so clear
>that it will not be misused and misunderstood.
They do already prevent excessive testing of hosts. Thus, actually
doing a relay test wouldn't be excessively abu
Nicolas MONNET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 September 1999 at 16:54:52 +0200
> Would'nt it make sense to ask the fine people at the MAPSRBL to explain
> the meaning of their test? And to point to qmail as an example of an MTA
> which will properly bounce back.
They do explain it now.
I think this has been done. Repeatedly.
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicolas MONNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 3:55 PM
> To: Russell Nelson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mail.com blacklisting
>
>
>
> On Tu
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
> You're solving the wrong problem (which means that you'll never
> succeed, except at random). The problem is that Mail.com has no clue.
> If you don't give them a clue, you are failing to do the right thing.
> Tell Mail.com's customers why their mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Sam wrote:
> "Beautiful boundaries between the different handler programs" sounds nice
> in principle. In practice, however, sooner or later you reach the point
> where further modularization adds nothing of value, but increases
> obfuscat
David Harris writes:
>
> You can just do some "simple checking".. there's too much complexity in the way
> that qmail handles the mail. Yes, you could toss all of this functionality into
> qmail-smtpd, but then you break down the beautiful boundaries between the
> different handler programs.
I t
st <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:54 PM
Subject: RE: Mail.com blacklisting
>
> Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> > > Doesn't Postfix also behave in the same way? Seems to me that pretty much
> > > any
Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Doesn't Postfix also behave in the same way? Seems to me that pretty much
> > any MTA whose port 25 listener is running unprivileged is going to have
> > the same problem
>
> getpwnam() will tell you if a userid is valid, or not, n
PROTECTED]
---
- Original Message -
From: Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Qmail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Mail.com blacklisting
> Jay D. Dyson writes:
>
> > I think the folks at vix.com and abuse.net
Russ Allbery writes:
> Doesn't Postfix also behave in the same way? Seems to me that pretty much
> any MTA whose port 25 listener is running unprivileged is going to have
> the same problem
I don't think so.
getpwnam() will tell you if a userid is valid, or not, no matter what
userid you're ru
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is not relay checking per se, but the real problem is that
> qmail-smtpd does not check whether the local address is valid, before
> accepting the message.
Doesn't Postfix also behave in the same way? Seems to me that pretty much
any MTA whose port
Jay D. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 31 August 1999 at 19:47:44
-0700
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Justin Bell wrote:
>
> > OK, so Mail.com and all it's domains have in their infinite wisdon have
> > decided to blacklist me due to the fact that
> >
Sam writes:
> The problem is not relay checking per se, but the real problem is that
> qmail-smtpd does not check whether the local address is valid, before
> accepting the message.
Right. An SMTP client cannot, a priori, trust a 250 OK response to a
RCPT TO: command to actually mean that the
Jay D. Dyson writes:
> I think the folks at vix.com and abuse.net are *far* from
> "idiots." I'm also currently attempting to acquire the source for the
> new-rlytest.cgi script to perform modifications that will demonstrate that
> Qmail doesn't relay. Even so, I think it would be good fo
Jay D. Dyson writes:
> > No. The output from rlytest is being misinterpreted. There are idiots
> > out there, and the only way to ensure that *they* get corrected is to
> > make sure that *they* get hurt. If you work around their brokenness,
> > they'll never get a clue.
>
> I thin
Jay D. Dyson writes:
> That is something of an sore issue for me, too. I've manually
> attempted the relay tests that the rlytest script does and none of them
> were successful (ones that did appear successful ended in internal bounces
> with no relaying performed). However, I think som
Justin Bell writes:
> OK, so Mail.com and all it's domains have in their infinite wisdon have
> decided to blacklist me due to the fact that
> http://maps.vix.com/tsi/new-rlytest.cgi?ADDR=iq-ss5.iquest.net
The people at mail.com have become morons, and you can quote me on that.
Did they point
18 matches
Mail list logo
