On 2008-02-16 18:27:21 -0500, Charlie Brady wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Keith Ivey wrote: > >Charlie Brady wrote: > >>> Suppose you have two addresses that forward to each other, either both > >>> on the local server or one remote and one local. > >> > >> qpsmtpd doesn't do forwarding between addresses, so doesn't need to > >> address this issue. > > > >You may be right about purely local forwarding, but what about the second > >case, where a remote server is involved. What should be detecting the > >loops, if qpsmtpd isn't? I think that since qmail-smtpd does loop > >detection (look for "hops" in qmail-smtpd.c), qpsmtpd should do the same.
I believe there is a plugin which does this by counting Received lines.
I never bothered to try it since postfix does it anyway (and "avoiding
bounces" isn't an issue if we are already in a loop).
> OK.
>
> However I stand by my original statement that qpsmtpd can (and should, and
> I believe does, via require_resolvable_fromhost) *avoid* loops created by
> MX records resolving to 0.0.0.0, so there is no need to detect the loop
> which such a record creates with qmail.
I probably missed something, but how does this avoid mail loops?
require_resolvable_fromhost checks the domain name of the *sender*,
which cannot cause a mail loop. A mail loop would happen when the domain
of the recipient resolves to 0.0.0.0 (or 127.0.0.1, or any other local
address). This could be checked by the SMTP client, if necessary.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | It took a genius to create [TeX],
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | and it takes a genius to maintain it.
| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | That's not engineering, that's art.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
