On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:17, evilbunny wrote:
> Hello David,
> DF> you might not be able to control the reverse mapping but it
> DF> should still map to something - which is good enough.
> DF> Are there co-lo places where the IP doesn't reverse map to
> DF> anything? and if so, why? (apart from i
I don't think it's off topic either.. i've been following closely
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, David Fitch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:26:47PM +1100, Tony Green wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:21, David Fitch wrote:
> > > you could argue that it's not a "legimate mail server"
> > > if it doe
Hello David,
DF> you might not be able to control the reverse mapping but it
DF> should still map to something - which is good enough.
DF> Are there co-lo places where the IP doesn't reverse map to
DF> anything? and if so, why? (apart from incompetence
DF> or cluelessness)
Neither, it's to do
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:26:47PM +1100, Tony Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:21, David Fitch wrote:
> > you could argue that it's not a "legimate mail server"
> > if it doesn't reverse resolve.
> > Are there valid reasons why they wouldn't reverse resolve?
>
> What if you house your mach
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:21, David Fitch wrote:
> you could argue that it's not a "legimate mail server"
> if it doesn't reverse resolve.
> Are there valid reasons why they wouldn't reverse resolve?
>
What if you house your machines at a co-lo site? You're allocated an IP
and you can't control t
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:18:27PM +1100, Crossfire wrote:
> Kevin Waterson was once rumoured to have said:
> > How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
> > do not reverse lookup?
>
> This is not always a good idea - not every legimate mail server has a
> valid reverse lookup address
This one time, at band camp,
Tony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> spamassassin is your friend and will be more reliable than throwing away
> mail before it even arrives
We are using spamassassin
Kevin
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philo
Plus you could consider giving sendmail the flick and install postfix with
spamassassin. :) Have a look at postfix at http://postfix.org
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 13:27, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp,
> > Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not always a go
Hello Crossfire,
C> I consider the chance of losing legimate mail to be far worse than
C> failing to stop spam.
C> Spamassassin is quite useful in this role - and I'm sure you can write
C> it a rule to perform this test.
A lot of co-lo servers have no choice in the matter, you can always
add an
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 13:23, Malcolm V wrote:
> After running the above through m4 I got:
>
> Sendmail by default does not accept mail from hosts that do not reverse
> lookup. To accept mail from these hosts the following feature must be
> enabled;
> FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')
>
> Thi
Kevin Waterson was once rumoured to have said:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is not always a good idea - not every legimate mail server has a
> > valid reverse lookup address. (Certainly, the ones in evilhouse
> > don't).
>
> I know the down sid
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 13:27, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp,
> Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is not always a good idea - not every legimate mail server has a
> > valid reverse lookup address. (Certainly, the ones in evilhouse
> > don't).
>
> I know the down
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 12:52, Tony Green wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 12:54, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> > How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
> > do not reverse lookup?
> >
>
> It should by default, disabled by
> FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl
>
> in your sendmail.mc
This one time, at band camp,
Crossfire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is not always a good idea - not every legimate mail server has a
> valid reverse lookup address. (Certainly, the ones in evilhouse
> don't).
I know the down side, but the amount of spam from non reversed addresses
is greate
Kevin Waterson was once rumoured to have said:
> How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
> do not reverse lookup?
This is not always a good idea - not every legimate mail server has a
valid reverse lookup address. (Certainly, the ones in evilhouse
don't).
C.
--
--
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:54:14PM +1100, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
> do not reverse lookup?
>
/etc/hosts.deny
smtp: PARANOID
or maybe
PARANOID: smtp
Anand
--
`` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
When the mind is p
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 12:54, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
> do not reverse lookup?
>
It should by default, disabled by
FEATURE(`accept_unresolvable_domains')dnl
in your sendmail.mc
--
Tony Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tel : +61-(0)4-2521-9
How is it possible to ban all mail from addresses that
do not reverse lookup?
Kind regards
Kevin
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Kevin Waterson
Byron Bay, Australia
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http:/
18 matches
Mail list logo
