Maybe the name of that config option should be changed to "truthful_networks".
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 03:55 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
>
> Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
> haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
> it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
> as much!
jdow wrote:
Is there a local workaholics annonymous branch near you?
Oh I'm sure not to be anonymous about it. I guess one upside to
insomnia is that I don't spend time working that could be better spent
sleeping.
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
as much!
Is there a local work
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on
On 6/30/2006 10:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can do one
of the following:
- have all your MSA users use SM
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I do
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
> Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
> domain), and that I do want to accept such mail.
The human c
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[..]
> Mail Submission Agent... accepts mail from your own clients' MUAs (also
> known as UAs).
>
>
> >> You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
> the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
> fill that in).
My setup is a bit more complex than the one described here; I said
"assume f
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This inspired me to make a brute force test. Something has changed in
the machine's configuration that allows me to remove all references to
internal or trusted networks and still run without ALL_TRUSTED coming
up and bugging me. Maybe those entrie
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Earthlink mail servers are ABSODAMNLUTELY not part
of my internal network. But if I do not list them with tr
I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
fill that in).
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that r
Ben Wylie wrote:
No. Internal only if it's not directly accepting mail from client IPs
that you WANT to accept mail from. MXes and everything (internal
relays) after them are ALWAYS in both trusted and internal networks.
>
> This is what tells SA that mail was sent directly from "questionab
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on internal_networks. Assume for
simplicity I have a mail domain b.c. The MX records point to a.b.c.
I'm running SA on a.b.c for m
No. Internal only if it's not directly accepting mail from client IPs
that you WANT to accept mail from. MXes and everything (internal
relays) after them are ALWAYS in both trusted and internal networks.
>
> This is what tells SA that mail was sent directly from "questionable
> IPs" to your sy
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances w
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trus
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
One example is when
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
What, you
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER.
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
One example is when you are using
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ross Boylan wrote:
...
Maybe it will help to be concrete. I'll use made up names to foil
spambots:
People send me mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] b.edu has an MX record. I use
fetchmail to pull my mail off a.b.edu, the actual host machine the MX
re
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> > trusted?
>
> NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
> misconfiguration.
What, you *trust* all your users? :)
--
Joh
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expe
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expected. (So why doesn't
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to ma
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 01:45:52AM -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
For 99% of systems there's no need to worry about listing systems that
aren't a part of your mail network in your trusted_networks (and never
list them in your internal_networks). Keep
Nothing trimmed in an attempt to keep things somewhat coherent...
Ross Boylan wrote:
Thank you for your very clear answers. I have a few follow-up questions
below.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 23:44 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the Mail::Sp
Thank you for your very clear answers. I have a few follow-up questions
below.
On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 23:44 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on
> > Debian) I was unclear about trusted vs
On 6/21/2006 4:39 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on
Debian) I was unclear about trusted vs internal networks. After
reviewing previous emails on this list, here's what I think it is:
trusted_networks for hosts I trust to put good info in t
After reading the Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf (spamassassin 3.1.3-1 on
Debian) I was unclear about trusted vs internal networks. After
reviewing previous emails on this list, here's what I think it is:
trusted_networks for hosts I trust to put good info in the Received
headers.
internal_networks for
35 matches
Mail list logo
