Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On 18.11.19 18:10, Gregory Heytings wrote:
Bill Cole wrote:
Rejecting mail is a far better choice than delivering to a 'spam box'
since most users never bother looking there for anything. Rejections
at least stand some chance of making enough noise on the sender s
On 11/18/19 8:55 AM, Gregory Heytings wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>
>> I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered
>> with a bare IP helo that is legitimate.
>>
>
> That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5
> and 4.1.4) explicitly state that an address liter
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:23, Dominic Raferd
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:00, @lbutlr wrote:
>
>> Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with
>> a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
>> postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/su
Two other users replied to your question. For real-world mail
servers, my experience is that the only safe restriction (safe =
no false positives) is "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
Irrelevant to HELO argument filtering.
On 18.11.19 18:10, Gregory Heytings wrote:
Relevant to reject
Two other users replied to your question. For real-world mail servers,
my experience is that the only safe restriction (safe = no false
positives) is "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname".
Irrelevant to HELO argument filtering.
Relevant to rejecting emails. Perhaps I should have wr
Bill Cole wrote:
Rejecting mail is a far better choice than delivering to a 'spam box'
since most users never bother looking there for anything. Rejections at
least stand some chance of making enough noise on the sender side to get
misconfigurations fixed.
IME exactly the opposite is true, b
On 18 Nov 2019, at 8:55, Gregory Heytings wrote:
Hi,
I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered
with a bare IP helo that is legitimate.
That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5
and 4.1.4) explicitly state that an address literal can b
On 18 Nov 2019, at 7:22, Gregory Heytings wrote:
Hi,
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail
with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
No it is not, it's a RFC violation
On 18 Nov 2019, at 6:59, @lbutlr wrote:
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail
with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
Yes.
There are cases of Special Needs Nodes (printer
Hi,
I know it’s an RFC violation, but I see no email that is delivered with
a bare IP helo that is legitimate.
That might be your experience, but RFC 2821 (3.6) and RFC 5321 (2.3.5 and
4.1.4) explicitly state that an address literal can be used after
HELO/EHLO. So it's a RFC violation
Hello
On 2019/11/18 8:32 下午, @lbutlr wrote:
How much legitimate mail do you get with an IP helo?
I just saw postfix in my Vps, the default configuration is using IP for
Helo command.
I use this postfix to send monitor stuff to myself, received in gmail.
regards.
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail
with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
On 18.11.19 13:22, Gregory Heytings wrote:
No it is not, it's a RFC violation. The string that
On 18 Nov 2019, at 05:22, Gregory Heytings wrote:
>> Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a
>> helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd
>> and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
>>
>
> No it is not, it's a RFC vio
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:00, @lbutlr wrote:
> Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with
> a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
> postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
>
> I have about 50,000 NOQUEUE reject from "h
Hi,
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail
with a helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on
postfix/stmpd and obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
No it is not, it's a RFC violation. The string that follows HELO/EHLO is
purely i
Is it safe (or mostly safe) to simply block attempts to deliver mail with a
helo that is only an IP address? (I am talking about only on postfix/stmpd and
obviously not on postfix/submit or related).
I have about 50,000 NOQUEUE reject from "helo=<[193.32.160.151]>" over the last
week, for examp
16 matches
Mail list logo
