[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Dennis Peterson wrote: >> > I guess I'm saying that if I telnet to fw.domain.name on 25, I should >> see >> > something like >> > >> > 220 fw.domain.name ESMTP mail relay. >> > >> > If it doesn't say that, then it is lying to anyone who connects to it. >> > Forward and back dns should resolve to the name spit out by the smtp >> 220 >> > string. This should be verifiable. >> >> If I have a server with 500 virt hosts you could get a helo from any one >> of them. If you telnet back to it on port 25 what do you think you might >> see? One of about 499 "liars", maybe? > > Well I am assuming that you would be doing a forward-reverse-forward to > and comparing it to there. If a forward of mail.someclient.com is 1.2.3.4 > and a reverse of 1.2.3.4 is fw.domain.name and a forward of fw.domain.name > is 1.2.3.4 then it's not lying. In fact, that is quite common. I'm > saying there should be a consistent forward-reverse mapping for the actual > mail server and that that mapping should match the 220 string. If > someclient.com has more than one priority MX server to handle mail then > whatever server is handling it (fw2.domain.name?) should have proper > forward-and-back mappings. > > > -- > Eric Wheeler
I give up. I was really thinking the light was about to go on, too. dp _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
