Markus Stumpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:07:20PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
qmail-smtpd does not enforce anything of that kind. qmail-remote does, on
outbound delivery.
Oups, you're correct!
I am still on 1.01 on some mail servers and that has
void
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:59:27PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
The encoded envelope sender address isn't expanded on beyond the examples
given, but your proposal might give a good performance increase for very
large lists (a la redhat.com
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:20:26PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27 Jul 00, at 18:13, Peter van Dijk wrote:
You might get listed as 'untestable', yes. Not, ever, as an open
relay.
You mean not listed under relays.orbs.org? Or do you
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 12:20:59AM +0200, Markus Stumpf wrote:
[snip]
If you put aside the bandwidth overhead qmail has and the CPU/memory
overhead sendmail has in sorting a 150,000 user mailing list with
all the race conditions involved I can think of, there are some memory
frazzles from
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:59:27PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
-x-
A package is the concatenation of three strings:
first, an encoded 8-bit mail message;
second, an encoded envelope sender address;
third, an encoded series of encoded envelope recipient addresses.
-x-
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 01:57:22PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Just in case anybody cares, I am tired of being spammed by
relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl. I am now blocking 194.178.232.55. If
this causes my server to be listed by ORBS, so be it.
You might get listed as 'untestable', yes. Not,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 27 Jul 00, at 18:13, Peter van Dijk wrote:
You might get listed as 'untestable', yes. Not, ever, as an open
relay.
You mean not listed under relays.orbs.org? Or do you refer to your
proprietary handling of the zone?
-BEGIN PGP
On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:07:20PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
qmail-smtpd does not enforce anything of that kind. qmail-remote does, on
outbound delivery.
Oups, you're correct!
I am still on 1.01 on some mail servers and that has
void err_seenmail() { out("503 one MAIL per message
Sorry to contribute to the noise ratio on qmail-list ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote:
| That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
| relays.orbs.org? Who told them that they would find DNS entries
| belonging to hosts which had never spammed? This is other than
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:24:17AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VERP was proposed by DJB as a way to identify bounce recipients. VERP
requires that each recipient have their own From: as well as To:.
Not quite: it's envelope senders and
"David Dyer-Bennet" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah! Okay, I see some objection there. I've had double-bounces turned
off for a long, long time (and none of the causes were ORBS probes),
but a more macho admin wouldn't want to do that of course.
I don't consider myself "macho" (although at
Just in case anybody cares, I am tired of being spammed by
relaytest.orbs.vuurwerk.nl. I am now blocking 194.178.232.55. If
this causes my server to be listed by ORBS, so be it.
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok |
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:24:17AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
Does QMTP support per-recipient envelope senders for a single copy of
a single message?
qmail will happily expand VERP after a message has been entered thru
SMTP/QMTP.
But does QMTP
-x-
A package is the concatenation of three strings:
first, an encoded 8-bit mail message;
second, an encoded envelope sender address;
third, an encoded series of encoded envelope recipient addresses.
-x-
The encoded envelope sender address isn't expanded on beyond the examples
This may get somewhat off topic ...
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:15:15AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
The move to lower bandwidth consumption of websites in general has picked up
speed as well. Many many sites and organisations are taking a stand to
reduce bandwidth use of websites and the
Replies are in private ... anyone actually interested may ask for ensuing
discussion :-).
Markus Stumpf wrote:
This may get somewhat off topic ...
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for multiple bad (non-local)
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:53:34AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Peter van Dijk writes:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
[snip]
PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although
it is most probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original
orbs probe messages in my mail logs had the following line:-
Received: from unknown (HELO
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:03:32PM +0800, Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) wrote:
PS I don't want to get involved in the ORBS debate [although it is most
probably a bit late ;-)], but one of the original orbs probe messages
in my mail logs had the following
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:01:18AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[snip]
Our company hosts the relaytester because some of our techies believe
the ORBS-project is worth supporting. All opinions I post are mine,
possibly but not necessarily shared by zero or more of my co-workers.
For what
You cannot do more than check a single IP address and get a yes or no
response without having a signed agreement with the RBL team. At the
moment, I don't believe they even allow you to download their whole list
at all since they're reworking the agreement.
Wrong. You can perform
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web page that they didn't
intend to allow that without someone signing.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
! Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
! give you the entire list.
!
! Without signing the document?
Yes. DJB has posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Jul 00, at 22:54, Chris, the Young One wrote:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-)
! That'll give you the entire list.
!
! Without signing the document?
Yes. DJB has posted on [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
give you the entire list.
Without signing the document?
That sounds like a bug, since they say on the web
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
www.orbs.org/database.html
ORBS only provides dumps consisting of hosts over 30 days old. From RSS,
tho, a current list is easily obtained as Alan outlines there.
That claims a straight-forward zone transfer works. Grr. Okay, off to
mail the RSS
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 10:54:38PM +1200, Chris, the Young One wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:47:03AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
! Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
! Wrong. You can perform zone transfers on MAPS' nameservers :-) That'll
! give you the entire list.
!
!
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:01:23PM +0200, Petr Novotny wrote:
! Do you mean the same one as I do? That one doesn't do anything
! else than "bruteforce-downloading" the entire zone on host-by-host
! basis (the only "speedups" come from the possibility of having the
! entire /24, /16 or even /8
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a momentary failure.
RC
--
+---
| Ricardo Cerqueira
| PGP Key fingerprint - B7 05 13 CE 48 0A BF 1E 87
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a
momentary failure.
I've mailed them and made the same arguments that I was
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:45:31AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ricardo Cerqueira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:12:32PM +0100, Ricardo Cerqueira wrote:
and now, it refuses the query :-)
I hate replying to myself, but it still works. Must have been a
momentary
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 19:53:13 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed
ORBS - they do have a
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incidentally, is there a discussion in the past that I've missed about 'void
main' declarations? :-)
Yes. A quick search of the archives for "void main" yields:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1996/12/msg01898.html
-Dave
No offense to DJB at all, but you have a very strange view of open sourced
software if you don't believe in using patches. I presume you don't use
rolled distributions of Linux (if you run Linux at all) either, seeing as
they're usually packed with patches.
Patches are basically the equivalent
Joe Kelsey wrote:
If a major point of
Qmail's existence is to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this
_must_ include cooperating with other MTAs (without violating
standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving them
headaches so that we don't 'encourage' them to lose
I must have mistakenly added the message to the list. As my own comment stated,
I didn't mean to subject the list to our discussion.
I wrote:
That said, I'm leaving this off the list because I don't like noise,
so I'm not going to subject others to it.
Joe Kelsey wrote:
You don't bother
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
VERP was proposed by DJB as a way to identify bounce recipients. VERP
requires that each recipient have their own From: as well as To:.
Not quite: it's envelope senders and recipients, not To: and From:
fields. (So recipients can still receive
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No offense to DJB at all, but you have a very strange view of open sourced
software if you don't believe in using patches.
One last time.
Qmail is not "open source software". Is not now. Has never been. In
all probability
Russell Nelson wrote:
Are these records in relays.orbs.org? How can you say that ORBS
doesn't block them, then? Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
for the DNS zone entries. Semantics which nobody else uses.
That's very nice, but what about the people blocking using
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is and/or where the license
is embedded in C source files ...
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
No offense
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
Qmail is not "open source software". Is not now. Has never been. In
all probability never will be.
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it
Those license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license
agreement before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is
and/or where the license is embedded in C source files ...
qmail is copyrighted by DJB. You have no rights to copy or use it
other than
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do. That said, I have still seen nothing about the
licensing of his software besides that he doesn't care about anything
that isn't implicitly illegal.
That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do. That said, I have still seen nothing about the
licensing of his software besides that he doesn't care about anything
that isn't implicitly illegal.
"Michael T. Babcock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That said, I have still seen nothing about the licensing of his
software besides that he doesn't care about anything that isn't
implicitly illegal.
See URL:http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html.
paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, in a case-law country, I can do pretty much whatever I think
is legal to do until he sues me. At that point, the courts decide.
Most importantly, will he allow full-modification and redistribution
with a new name (GPL style). IE, forking.
It's clear from
Greg Owen writes:
Yup. If you have one qmail box forwarding to a second qmail box
which is the mail store, you get this amplification.
No, you don't get any amplification. You only get amplification if
you can get someone else's machine to expend resources that you
didn't.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 09:06:43AM -0400, Brian Johnson wrote:
yes, but most people only have enough money for so many cars, or can only
drink so much pepsi or coke. an admin can use as many or as few of the
lists as they want without any cost/limit. when you go to buy a car, you
generally
Michael T. Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand Copyright law as much as many long time free / open source
software advocates do.
Very few people understand copyright law in general. Free software advocates
are not much better at it than others; RMS is a notable exception.
That
Argh. Get that misconception *out your head*.
People who disallow ORBS to scan them get listed as *untestable*,
not as *open relays*. ORBS doesn't block.
Are these records in relays.orbs.org?
How can you say that ORBS doesn't block them, then?
Oh, I see, ORBS made up their own semantics
OK 2 NET - André Paulsberg writes:
Never has the policies of ORBS have ANYTHING directly to do with SPAM,
it is an validated Open Relay database which for obvious reason also
contains those who deny/decive ORBS testing by blocking it.
In other words, it's a good place to go to find open
Greg Owen writes:
Yes, there is amplification. It does work, I have tested it, what
follows is a description of how it works.
Yes, you have described the situation accurately, and yes, I was
wrong. In the main, though, you've laid out yet another argument
against secondary MX.
--
In the main, though, you've laid out yet another argument
against secondary MX.
If so, it's the first anti-secondary-MX argument I've seen that
didn't boil down to "incompetent machine administration causes problems,"
which is true with or without multiple MX - it's just easier for
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 22:54:44 -0700
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed ORBS -
they do have a competing service, do they not?
And ORBS is both spamming and operating a spam support
In the immortal words of Michael T. Babcock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
You are free to tell me where I was supposed to agree to a license agreement
before downloading it and/or where the LICENSE file is and/or where the license
is embedded in C source files ...
Goddamnit. The entire world is NOT a
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't mind ORBS publishing the list of known open relays, and I don't
mind ORBS accepting open-relay reports based on scans (or even running
their own).
I find RSS not adequate and RBL badly inadequate (though I continue to
use it to help them
Never has the policies of ORBS have ANYTHING directly to do with SPAM,
it is an validated Open Relay database which for obvious reason also
contains those who deny/decive ORBS testing by blocking it.
In other words, it's a good place to go to find open relays,
in order to abuse them.
Put
But when the system doesn't relay and has never relayed, constantly *retesting*
it and dumping that mail in the postmaster's mailbox seems wrong.
Sure, it's not that much spam, but when you have a number of hosts
with mail setups like that, it starts slowly adding up.
And of course, their
Greg Owen writes:
In the main, though, you've laid out yet another argument
against secondary MX.
But even if you got rid of secondary MXs, there's another
scenario this attacks, one which most basic firewall design courses
and books recommend: using a mail relay as a bastion
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) writes:
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 24 July 2000 at 15:00:18 -0700
But no, I was talking specifically about their probes. Several of their
probes use both mangled return paths and mangled recipients that look like
their local. Any mail setup where the SMTP listener doesn't know what
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really
putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of.
ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke. Either that, or Alan Brown has
literally no clue whatsoever how
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:18:21PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to
Russ Allbery wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And either ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke or MAPS is really
putting the boot in in their private way, in ways I can't approve of.
ORBS is blowing *amazing* clouds of smoke. Either that, or Alan Brown has
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and ORBS,
because I know nothing of BGP routing.
Short version: ORBS's upstream ISP is intentionally asking AboveNet to
advertise a netblock that includes ORBS despite AboveNet making it clear
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
orbs.org and the accusations he makes of people, I'm amazed that
anyone uses ORBS.
Ugly all around.
Yup.
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 22 July 2000 at 09:15:45 -0400
Alan is the south end of a horse going north. Given the way he runs
orbs.org and the accusations he makes of
In the immortal words of Eric Cox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I can't comment on this latest battle of wills between MAPS and
ORBS, because I know nothing of BGP routing. But in the last one,
when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in the right. I saw
grown men, (admins!) trying to
Russ Allbery wrote:
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But in the last one, when ORBS listed in the RBL, ORBS was totally in
the right. I saw grown men, (admins!) trying to defend the position
that by ORBS sending up to 16 messages through their servers a few times
a _year_, ORBS
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
relays for spammers to use. That is assuming they don't also
vigilantly patrol their own
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:10:42PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
Whatever happened to helping other people make their services better,
rather than declaring all-out war on them and trying to destroy them?
We're misplacing all of the anger that we have for spammers onto ORBS
simply because a few
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 19:53:13 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 04:21:53PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
There is a very good explanation for that. It's because a large ISPs
that block the ORBS tester become a ready-made repository of open
relays for
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins can run
any combination of RSS, RBL, ORBS and DUL (not to mention several
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 23 July 2000 at 21:43:27 -0400
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 07:36:55PM -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
By using the word "competing", you're implying that admins have a choice of
running one or the other, but not both. This isn't the case. Admins
Peter van Dijk writes:
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:22:41AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
Yup. I'm just going by history here. MAPS has never abused their
position, whereas ORBS is known to block non-spammers simply because
they refuse to allow ORBS to scan them.
Argh. Get that
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
You're aware that some machines *which didn't relay* were being tested
by ORBS as frequently as once a *day*, aren't you? Or are you just
going by Alan Brown's account of what he does, which tends to be a
little... sanitized?
Once a
Eric Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some would argue that MAPS abused their position when they listed ORBS -
they do have a competing service, do they not?
And ORBS is both spamming and operating a spam support service under the
definition of that service. Suppose you run a security
Thanks for all the interest in my original posting to
this list. My question was:-
"Is it possible to stop qmail from generating multiple
bounce messages when mail with a forged sender address
is received for multiple bad (non-local) mailboxes?"
I guess the simple answer is, NO. (Is this
If I say 'sendmail', you'll say 'see, you should've used qmail' ... but I'll
say 'and how many other sites are using sendmail that will appreciate it?'.
Just telll me the first time someone finds a really cool porn AVI on some
site and E-mails it to all of his collegues at a different office and
John White wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 11:20:00AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
No, but if qmail is making the deliveries to another MTA, that MTA doesn't
have much choice about whether its going to accept deliveries from Qmail or
not, so why not make Qmail a nice neighbour while
I'd love to. Read my previous message.
If I see some discussion about it, and enough people are actually interested, I
may end up investing enough time to get this off the ground. I may not. I have
four other pieces of software to write (from scratch) over the next week.
John White wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really going to re-enter this recurring fray, but it is
amusing to note that web browsers open multiple connections at once
in an effort to speed up their perceived performance. I don't see
much push to stop that sort of greedy behaviour.
I do. HTTP 1.1 was
I would be really interested in seeing those numbers in the FAQ somewhere ...
Charles Cazabon wrote:
A few people have done the math; MTAs which aggregate recipients to save
bandwidth tend to have more overhead network bandwith (additional MX lookups,
etc), and the savings is not as great as
Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame? If I allow 20
simultaneous connections (hypothetically) and mail is
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I would have to agree with the multiple connections == bad neighbour behaviour
(if this is true).
I might encourage re-ordering of sends to have parallel, per-MX queues ...
This is very hard to do, and expensive. And it would slow down mail
delivery, both
3) Opening M connections (where M N) and sending the messages down those M
pipes without marking the message as having gone through a "could not connect to
mail server" situation but queuing it for that MX instead.
??
Dave Sill wrote:
Mark Mentovai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not? You
Greg Owen writes:
No, ORBS is talking about a different thing.
If I want to mailbomb foo.com, and bar.com is running qmail, then I
can connect to bar.com's mail and say:
No you can't, not like that. Try it.
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr
Greg Owen writes:
Yup. If you have one qmail box forwarding to a second qmail box
which is the mail store, you get this amplification.
No, you don't get any amplification. You only get amplification if
you can get someone else's machine to expend resources that you
didn't. Yes, you
Philip, Tim (CNBC Asia) writes:
orbs.org recently tested our qmail server, I mailed them and they advised
that our server could be used as a "proxy mailbomb relay". By this they
mean that a message with a forged FROM: address and multiple bad
RCPT TO: addresses will generate multiple
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:32:24AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
Ok then, on an honest note, the point would then be to have an MTA regulate its
incoming connections in an 'intelligent' manner so as to allow mail to actually
get through from non-qmail MTAs within a reasonable time frame?
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Petr Novotny wrote:
I really suggest you to sift through the archives first. My MTA really
does faster, even in this situation: The round-trip times around here
are too long. The less round-trips, the faster the mail gets through.
Easy as that.
Hmm...RSET needs one
If, however, you admit that it causes problems for sendmail installations, and
you admit that a lot of sites use sendmail, then you'll probably agree that
defining "good netizen" would include "limiting outgoing connections to a
particular MX" ... to some reasonable number (heck, you can detect
You've just missed a point of Qmail though. If a major point of Qmail's existence is
to provide reliable E-mail delivery, then this _must_ include cooperating with other
MTAs (without violating standards) at least enough to keep from crashing / giving
them headaches so that we don't 'encourage'
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 08:07:11AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
John White wrote:
To be blunt, I don't mind taking a look at the code changes you're
proposing. Where are they?
(Sarcasm:) What, you don't know how to code?
No, but I'm skeptical about ideas that are so good that
I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification on
Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host
refuses the connection because it has too many incoming sessions open.
Peter van Dijk wrote:
Also, the other hosts will
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 04:58:04PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
I understand the point you're correcting (of mine) but I would like a clarification
on
Qmail's behaviour when a given message is about to be delivered and the foreign host
refuses the connection because it has too many
Well written.
Pavel Kankovsky wrote:
Hmm...RSET needs one roundtrip (C: RSET, S: OK). A new SMTP connection
needs 3 roundtrips: 1. C:TCP(SYN), S:TCP(SYN+ACK), 2. C:TCP(ACK), S:server
hello, 3. C:HELO, S:OK. Moreover a typical TCP implementation will open
every new connection with most
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
