Dear all,
I've been happily using the DENIED_SENDER_NO_MX option for years with no
problems.
Yesterday, however, 24 hours after finally upgrading to 4.2.0 from a
previous 4.x version (sorry -- not sure which - possibly 4.0.6), I noticed
an oddity in my logs (redacted to protect the innocent).
Interesting - as long as mail.sending-domain.com has an A record, it
shouldn't NEED to have a MX record. I agree that DENIED_SENDER_NO_MX
should apply to the envelope sender (i.e., From header) domain and not
the rDNS for the sender's IP.
I guess this is why I added
On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:22:21 +0100 Faris Raouf wrote:
really good reason why the actual domain in the From line in the envelope
would not have an MX record.
MX is optional for the domain. If no IN MX is delegated mails are
delivered to whatever is set in IN A for that domain (that also means
On 5/12/11 9:45 AM, Marcin Orlowski wrote:
Also, for the same reson, it would be wrong assumption that
mail.sending-domain.com shall match one of MXes for sending-domain.com.
Exactly. That is what SPF records are for ...
Does Spamdyke even implement SPF checking?
--
Dossy Shiobara |
If you browse around the net, you'll find that the concept of ipv6 and
spam filtering is mostly still broken across-the-board, particularly
related to the concept of RBLs. It is unlikely that mail providers will
move to ipv6 anytime soon.
Here:
Sam,
FWIW, Eric asked me to copy this post over here to this list when I got
around to it. So, am doing so today.
I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, but he thought you should have
these observations from the field.
Thanks,
Tim
On 04/28/2011 02:20 PM, Tim Pleiman wrote:
On Thu, April
I didn't realize that. Don't you need to be registered to post (thus
giving you access to the archive)?
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 05/12/2011 12:19 PM, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
Eric, FWIW, the archive is private ...
On 5/12/11 1:24 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
This is a known bug (2 actually):
Yes, private archives require list members to authenticate before
accessing archived messages. I suppose anyone who's reading this list
is likely doing so as a member of the list (and not through some
alternate means) and so should be able to access the archive, too.
On 5/12/11 3:28 PM, Eric
No, SPF checking hasn't been implemented. It's on the TODO list but
there are some other, bigger, features on the list that have higher
priority (so it'll probably be a while before I get around to it).
-- Sam Clippinger
On 5/12/11 9:05 AM, Dossy Shiobara wrote:
On 5/12/11 9:45 AM, Marcin
It's true spamdyke doesn't handle IPv6, but it's equally likely the
first problem is in tcpserver or xinetd. Because spamdyke is started by
another process (tcpserver or xinetd, depending on your setup) after the
incoming connection has been accepted, spamdyke can't discover the
remote IP
FWIW, I think that being able to use spamdyke with other mail servers (I
have my eye on postfix) would be a big boon. Solving the IPV6 problem at
the same time would be a bonus.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
On 05/12/2011 02:48 PM, Sam Clippinger wrote:
It's true spamdyke doesn't handle IPv6, but it's
I completely agree that having both an MX and an A record for a domain
is legal and sensible, when you're talking about a top-level domain
(e.g. spamdyke.org). For subdomains and machine names, (IMHO) the need
for a complicated configuration has to be pretty big to justify the risk
of an
12 matches
Mail list logo