Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-24 Thread Richard Hector
On 24/12/12 05:41, Mark Ford wrote: My iptables is correct? - if so, how come the email comes through? I have the same problem with other /24 netmasks, for example when trying to block mail from Yell. I can't see anything wrong either. I'd start debugging by adding otherwise

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Mark Ford
> Is the above your complete iptables ruleset? Is this ruleset on the mail > > server in question, or on a seperate box? If on a seperate box, is it > > acting as a router, are you doing any NAT? It's all on the same box. It's a complete ruleset except the additional DROP lines which are identi

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Mark Ford
No other rules, see next post.. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/572de1d1-09a2-4adb-a3b1-ea1c031f3...@googlegroups.com

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Tom Furie
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 05:10:45AM -0800, Mark Ford wrote: > I am hoping someone can help show me where I'm going wrong. > I have iptables setup in the following way, basically, I am > using the chain "pests" to drop data from certain IPs. > > > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) > target prot opt

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread John Hasler
Do you have an iptables rule somewhere that is allowing smtp? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87623ssc9u@thumper.dhh.gt.org

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Mark Ford
I've checked my mainlog and the originating ip appears to be exactly the same as the email header; 67.228.245.121 Could it be ip spoofing? How would they do that? Or maybe exim is somehow accepting connections over udp? - I'm clutching at straws! Hoping someone can help me solve this. Thank yo

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Jonathan Matthews
On 23 December 2012 16:41, Mark Ford wrote: > Here is a shortened version of the output from iptables-save (full version > simply has more "-A pests" lines). > > # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.8 on Sun Dec 23 16:24:43 2012 > *filter > :INPUT ACCEPT [252417:278747603] > :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] >

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Pascal Hambourg
Mark Ford a écrit : > Here is a shortened version of the output from iptables-save (full version > simply has more "-A pests" lines). > > # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.8 on Sun Dec 23 16:24:43 2012 > *filter > :INPUT ACCEPT [252417:278747603] > :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [255016:2

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Mark Ford
Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" As you can see from the top most Received: line, it gives the ip 67.228.245.121 You can also see my MTA is Exim (no other MTA). My iptables is correct? - if so, how come the email comes through? I have the same problem with other /24 netmasks, for example

Re: iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Pascal Hambourg
Hello, Mark Ford a écrit : > > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) > target prot opt source destination > pests tcp -- 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0 [...] > Chain pests (1 references) > target prot opt source destination > DROP tcp -- 1.85.17.0/24

iptables; some IPs are getting through netmasks

2012-12-23 Thread Mark Ford
I am hoping someone can help show me where I'm going wrong. I have iptables setup in the following way, basically, I am using the chain "pests" to drop data from certain IPs. Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination pests tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0

Re: netmasks

2002-09-22 Thread Tom Cook
be assigned to hosts on > the subnet?(also another was 64.122.34.83 & netmask 255.255.255.240 :( ) > > i was used to looking at plain netmasks ie 255.255.255.0(ff00) etc > which I understand fine but my grasp of anything else is less than > good... > > any help

Re: netmasks

2002-09-22 Thread David B Harris
of IP addresses that could be > assigned to hosts on the subnet?(also another was 64.122.34.83 & > netmask 255.255.255.240 :( ) > > i was used to looking at plain netmasks ie 255.255.255.0(ff00) etc > > which I understand fine but my grasp of anything else is less

Re: netmasks

2002-09-22 Thread Jason Lunz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Given the hypothetical subnet 136.206.16.128 and netmask 255.255.255.128, > state the valid range of IP addresses that could be assigned to hosts on > the subnet?(also another was 64.122.34.83 & netmask 255.255.255.240 :( ) > > i was used to lookin

Re: netmasks

2002-09-22 Thread Jeff
hosts on > the subnet?(also another was 64.122.34.83 & netmask 255.255.255.240 :( ) > > i was used to looking at plain netmasks ie 255.255.255.0(ff00) etc > which I understand fine but my grasp of anything else is less than > good... > > any help is appreciated..

netmasks

2002-09-22 Thread Martin Clarke
mask 255.255.255.240 :( ) i was used to looking at plain netmasks ie 255.255.255.0(ff00) etc which I understand fine but my grasp of anything else is less than good... any help is appreciated.. thanks Martin. -- Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it shoul

Netmasks unmasked (was Re: Need help w/ dhcpd )

2001-12-12 Thread Brandon N
hat > way > for nearly 2 years. (netmasks have always been a bit of voodoo magic > for me anyway (see question below)- ack!) However, our IS dept. told > us to use that subnet mask and additionally delegated us a domain and > the 4 class C subnets for our testing use. At least