I have the plugin loaded: require_resolvable_fromhost and it never seems to
flag unresolvable "MAIL FROM" hosts:
220 XX ESMTP qpsmtpd 0.84 ready; send us your mail, but not your spam.
HELO .
250 XX Hi some.host.online [10.1.1.10]; I am so happy to meet you.
MAIL FROM:
250 , sender OK - ho
My whole thing was, why send a 421 if the SMTP code returned from the actual
relay/mailhub is "5xx Account disabled." or some other 5xx non-deliverable.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Chris Lewis wrote:
> On 9/15/2010 3:51 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> I have a strong suspicion that the aut
Thoughts on the following changes to smtp-forward? These diffs were taken
against the svn smtp-forward checked out yesterday.
Thanks.
--- smtp-forward 2010-09-13 17:16:07.516676585 -0400
+++ /tmp/smtp-forward 2010-09-14 13:40:37.436676584 -0400
@@ -20,6 +20,13 @@
=cut
use Net::SMTP;
+use Net::
un
ing on headers/strings and not do any kind of real (numerical)
comparisons.
Someone providing a patch to add it sure looks like an example of there being
a need for it even today...
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
onders for "normal" people using a packaged qpsmtpd and not enough
time/knowhow to tinker with settings/plugins...
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
ions in time() -- Peter has shown that the clock resolution is
GH> (close to) 1 us for all likely systems other than the alpha.
Or the same hostname on a second server, which is something we shouldn't rule
out...
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Matt Sergeant write:
> On 29-Aug-07, at 6:38 PM, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Matt Sergeant write:
> >
> > MS> I've added in a basic hashed version of hostname now.
> >
> > Wou
and one for outgoing (logging, whitelisting, preventing
spam/viruses from exiting).
Yeah, I saw the crypt+rand, but if something is worth doing... =)
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
ique IDs that'll be unique even when they've got more than one
server and centralized/aggregated logging... But we're not even there right
now, "we" are still stuck on how to make the IDs 100% unique within a single
server as it might be setup by "any" qpsmtpd
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 the voices made Guy Hulbert write:
GH> On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 16:53 +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote:
GH> > (Only reason I gave this some thought was because I few days ago wanted
unique
GH> > IDs traceable to a single server, without having to use staticall
ger
than when qpsmtpd is restarted on one of the two affected servers; to the cost
of a very slight extra resource usage at the startup.
(Only reason I gave this some thought was because I few days ago wanted unique
IDs traceable to a single server, without having to use statically assigned
identifiers. The purely security implications of adding unique IDs to qpsmtpd
without them possibly being less unique in a multi-mx setup seems quite
neglectable; but still easily avoidable... )
/Tony
--
"Generally speaking, taunting mentally unstable people is a bad idea."
s ok, you see, I can quit anytime I want to, I just
don't want to... the packages make me feel good, they are my friends...)
/Tony
ng like
netfilter instead of qpsmtpd plugins...
/Tony
PS IMNSHO people still using that old "because the CEO [...]"-line should
go on a date with a clue-by-four; I mean, if you don't consider removing
the security to the serverroom on the off chance that the CEO might want
blocking
SMTP from that "dangerous" country?!
I don't want to make this about specific plugins/problems/solutions,
instead I'm curious if you see a trend here and/or have some thoughts
about this; maybe you even have faced the "where should I implement this"-
question and have some facts/data to share?
/Tony
t but think of that as a great "shortcut"/help for those
getting started with qpsmtpd...)
/Tony
Johan Almqvist writes:
However even if there was a separate plugin repository and a vBulletin,
I'd still want the wiki to direct all the forum (and list) RTFM's to...
You just make those stick at the top of the (sub)forums... With the added
benefit that you get a sort of web-of-trust as well
ve their set of plugins in use
(check with the configfile, and only rsync the active ones) shared with the
world.
/Tony
no legal value (IANALNDIPOOT)
whatsoever... but does have the power to irritate the people whose advice
you're looking for (and so will HTML-emails).
/Tony
t I can accept; even though I don't like
the idea of rewriting 10 huge e-mails instead of just one, it's doable (and
not that bad if done right).
/Tony
there been some kind of official(ish) talk about adding such
a feature (without one having to write a queue-plugin)?
/Tony
(A pre-"me too" in disguise...)
Guillaume Filion writes:
It's pretty much what VERP is all about.
VERP is something that works in many situations, mainly related to
mailinglists, but compared with a "Bounced-Message-Id"-solution it's an ugly
hack.
/Tony
y we don't have
something like a "Bounced-Message-Id: <[message-id of message being
bounced]>"-like header in all these bounces.
It seems like such a basic thing that really should exist that I can't help
but wondering: What is it that I'm missing here, why is there no such thing
in these bounces?
/Tony
ecord of an incoming e-mail from doing y says the sending server is a
good one, then you let the e-mail bypass all other spamfilters (to lighten
the load of the server, not to mention avoid something like SA eating up a
lot of resources to then erroneously send a viagra-joke to manually sorted
quarantine-folder).
/Tony
ity and do they probe the different options (As and
all MXs) to find what works best?
/Tony
softbouncing if you suddenly get an abnormal surge in activity (a possible
new virus/whatever), and if the problem keeps getting worse you could
firewall either easily identifiable subnets or take the (mail)server offline
a cpl of hours.
(Just a few thoughts.)
/Tony
Anyone interested in/already using a dnsbl-like whitelisting plugin
(bondedsender etc)?
/Tony
sidering firewalling some spamsources for a short period
of time, or at least rate-limit them (using iptables).
/Tony
l. But since its mainly a source of ideas I think a wiki page
"ideas for new plugins" would be sufficient.
Maybe, but personally I think that having a wiki as the main source of
information is holding the project back.
/Tony
Peter J. Holzer writes:
Something else I forgot?
Yeah, that people won't bother doing either of that. =/
Start with creating a single page listing _all_ plugins; their name, a short
description and an URL to where they can be found, the date it was added and
then a button people can press
than perfect sorting algorithm.
(Something I'm getting a touch of right now as I've had to urgently move to
a solution where my date-rewriter is no longer available and the mailprogram
has a lousy sorting algorithm...)
/Tony
ive-victims might see it.
To be even more on the safe side of things you'd of course just log these
these things for a couple of weeks before setting it to actually bounce,
but, hey, we both know that you won't do that... ;-)
/Tony
32 matches
Mail list logo
