Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > The remote mta security exploit I couldn't locate references to was
> > the "to= > vulnerable to "+:|" in the To address? Or perhaps none are and this
> > is simply a failed probe attempt?
>
> Likely related to CVE-2010-1132:
>
> http://cve.mitre.org/
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 14:53:53 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> A friend's Mac running Postfix logged this rejected attack:
>
> Feb 11 21:45:28 mailer postfix/smtpd[3708]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
> from unknown[216.104.47.74]: 504 5.5.2 : Helo command
> rejected: need fully-qualified hostname; from
A friend's Mac running Postfix logged this rejected attack:
Feb 11 21:45:28 mailer postfix/smtpd[3708]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[216.104.47.74]: 504 5.5.2 : Helo command rejected: need
fully-qualified hostname; from= to=&0 2>&0> proto=SMTP helo=
Of course this particular message was
If, and its a big if, they are respecting the various RFCs that cover
email then email to postmaster or abuse should get through. But as it is
a big IF>
On 11/02/2011 12:15 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
Anyway, the question is, how does the community as a whole deal with
big ISP's losing email? It s
On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 13:25 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Gary Smith wrote:
> >>> Anyway, the question is, how does the community as a whole deal with
> >>> big ISP's losing email? It seems that some companies (like ATT) seem
> >>> to have less and less access to tools necessary for communicating
