Re: [External] command injection by crafted recipient address

Joe Acquisto-j4: > >>> > > kris_h: > >> Hey Wietse, > >> > >> thank you for this clearification. > >> > >> What do you think about using the reject-recipient /\$\{/-rule? > > > > As a temporary rule, it may have made sense when the Exim bug was new. > > > > As a permanent 'deny' rule, it won't

Re: [External] command injection by crafted recipient address

>>> > kris_h: >> Hey Wietse, >> >> thank you for this clearification. >> >> What do you think about using the reject-recipient /\$\{/-rule? > > As a temporary rule, it may have made sense when the Exim bug was new. > > As a permanent 'deny' rule, it won't block new exploits. > > Wietse

Re: [External] command injection by crafted recipient address

> As a temporary rule, it may have made sense when the Exim bug was new. > As a permanent 'deny' rule, it won't block new exploits. yes, you're right, each PCRE-rule more is one more to be passed for each recipient... Thanks Kris -- Sent from: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postfi

Re: [External] command injection by crafted recipient address

kris_h: > Hey Wietse, > > thank you for this clearification. > > What do you think about using the reject-recipient /\$\{/-rule? As a temporary rule, it may have made sense when the Exim bug was new. As a permanent 'deny' rule, it won't block new exploits. Wietse

Re: [External] command injection by crafted recipient address

Hey Wietse, thank you for this clearification. What do you think about using the reject-recipient /\$\{/-rule? Kris -- Sent from: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postfix-Users-f2.html