Am 15.02.2013 00:29, schrieb Rod Whitworth:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:58:34 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with spam. One can just as easily send spam
>> as as one can as <>. The ISP can equally easily
>> track it down, since the Received: headers will contain the offend
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:58:34 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>This has nothing to do with spam. One can just as easily send spam
>as as one can as <>. The ISP can equally easily
>track it down, since the Received: headers will contain the offending
>IP address.
>
I don't know if you are seeing the
Le 14/02/2013 16:03, James Day a écrit :
> Hello List,
>
> I'll have to start by breaking to golden rule of this list and not posting
> postconf -n output as my question relates to a server over which I have no
> control.
>
> A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP through
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:14:06PM +, James Day wrote:
> > Not in this case, sending NDRs with a non-null envelope sender address is a
> > fundamental violation of the robustness requirements of SMTP. This goes
> > beyond working-around misconfiguration to flagrant violation of a basic
> > des
--snip--
> Not in this case, sending NDRs with a non-null envelope sender address is a
> fundamental violation of the robustness requirements of SMTP. This goes
> beyond working-around misconfiguration to flagrant violation of a basic
> design requirement that prevents congestive collapse of the ma
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Reindl Harald
> Sent: 14 February 2013 15:43
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: Null sender address in NDR's
>
>
>
> Am
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:36:11PM +, James Day wrote:
> > > Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
> > > with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
> > > host up to exploitation?
> >
> > Sending bounces is not "exploitation", but the "sma
Am 14.02.2013 16:36, schrieb James Day:
> .
>>> Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
>>> with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
>>> host up to exploitation?
>>
>> Sending bounces is not "exploitation", but the "smart host" (really
>> submi
Am 14.02.2013 16:36, schrieb James Day:
>> Not "should", MUST. Not "isn't best practice", rather prohibited.
> I understand and agree however in my experience you sometimes have
> to fudge things so they operate with incorrectly configured systems
> (against my own wishes!)
no you have not
i
.
> > Is there a sensible way to configure postfix to allow these messages
> > with null sender addresses to be relayed without opening the smart
> > host up to exploitation?
>
> Sending bounces is not "exploitation", but the "smart host" (really
> submission service) policy is up to the ISP. Ask
Am 14.02.2013 16:03, schrieb James Day:
> Hello List,
>
> I'll have to start by breaking to golden rule of this list and not posting
> postconf -n output as my question relates to a server over which I have no
> control.
>
> A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP through
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:03:23PM +, James Day wrote:
> A customer of mine is using a smart host provided by their ISP
> through which all outbound mail is delivered smtp.enta.net (which
> is running postfix).
This ISP's outbound relay is a submission service that is *only* suitable
for rela
12 matches
Mail list logo
