[spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Faris Raouf
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).

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Dossy Shiobara
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Marcin Orlowski
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Dossy Shiobara
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 |

Re: [spamdyke-users] ipv6 and spamdyke not work

2011-05-12 Thread Tim Pleiman
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:

[spamdyke-users] Follow up from Qmailtoaster list on FILTER_SENDER_NO_MX

2011-05-12 Thread Tim Pleiman
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Eric Shubert
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):

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Dossy Shiobara
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Sam Clippinger
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] ipv6 and spamdyke not work

2011-05-12 Thread Sam Clippinger
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] ipv6 and spamdyke not work

2011-05-12 Thread Eric Shubert
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

Re: [spamdyke-users] No MX: bug, misunderstanding or DNS failure?

2011-05-12 Thread Sam Clippinger
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