On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:16:50AM +0200, Jaroslaw Rafa via Postfix-users wrote:
> Dnia 14.05.2025 o godz. 08:29:06 Gregory Kohring via Postfix-users pisze:
> > Unfortunately, this is standard industry practice and cannot be
> > disabled."
>
> Utter bullshit. Doing a MiTM attack (because that's in fact what they do) on
> your server is a "standard industry practice"? What a bold statement on
> their part...
>
> If you're paying for a VPS, you're paying for having it directly connected
> to the Internet, not having some MiTM box underway.
>
> As far as I understand, the result of this is also that the receiving server
> sees your emails coming from a different IP address than the actual IP
> address of your server - the address of the "middle" box. They probably
> don't tell you that address, which means you can't even set your SPF record
> properly!
Actually, the "beautiful" think about transparent interception is that
the IP address need not change. Indeed the OP posted GMail "Received"
headers that confirmed that the source IP was his server.
> If I were you, I would move the VPS to a provider that behaves normally.
Regardless, indeed it should be possible to find an ISP with a less
invasive policy, though they'd still need to be responsive to spam
complaints and close down SMTP access for customers who violate AUP,
or else the IP range quickly gets a bad rep, and is then not useful
to any of the customers.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
