On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
>>> 502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
>>>
>>> just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
>>> address.
>>
>> You're missing the point. When you f
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:39:35 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
> >> when it comes to address verification. Regardless of whether you
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the big difference
>> when it comes to address verification. Regardless of whether you use
>> VRFY or MAIL FROM/RCPT TO/QUIT, if the address is invalid the
On Dec 27, 2009, at 4:14 PM, John Peach wrote:
> 502 5.5.1 VRFY command is disabled
>
> just tells you that VRFY has been disabled; not the validity of the
> address.
Far be it from me to speak for Ansgar, but on my postfix server, if VRFY
doesn't work, it's trivial to just say HELO/MAIL FROM/
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:47 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> >> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >>> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
> >>> prevent valid address harvest
On 2009-12-27 John Peach wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100 Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
>> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to
>>> prevent valid address harvesting,
>>
>> Which, of course, is utterly pointless.
>>
>> HELO exampl
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
>
>> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no legit,
>> nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
>
> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent valid
> ad
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0100
Ansgar Wiechers wrote:
> On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
> >> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
> >> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
> >
> > I
On 2009-12-26 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
>> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no
>> legit, nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
>
> I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
> v
Quoting Philippe Cerfon :
Regards,
Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Oops,.. ^^ That comes from not cleanly removing quotes ^^
Cheers,
Chris.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Without sending EHLO the client cannot know that the server supports
> ETRN, AUTH, etc., therefore such clients are not compliant. Perhaps
> some study of RFC 1869 is in order.
Ah,.. well ok,.. so far I just read the rfc5321 chater on orderin
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
> Regards,
> Philippe
Uhm?! Aren't you Christoph? :-P
The bad face of identity theft ^^
Philippe.
Quoting John Peach :
No it should not - they know. The RFCs were written way before the
problems we have now. Feel free to update the RFCs if you so wish.
ok,... The problem is however, that it's quite difficult for "normal"
users to find restrictions which are more strict that the default but
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 06:10:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema
>wrote:
> I don't wanna be nit-picking,.. but as I read through rfc 5321 right
> now, I found some other places where postfix might be not stricly
> speaking compliant... or where t
Philippe Cerfon:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
> I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
> should not be nece
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:10:53 +0100
Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> > HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
> I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> With "smtpd_helo_required = yes", the Postfix SMTP server requires
> HELO (or EHLO) before the MAIL, ETRN and AUTH commands (*).
I've just tried it vor ETRN, and as far as I understand the RFC it
should not be necessary for ETRN (as well as A
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:46:48 -0600
Stan Hoeppner replied:
>I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent
>valid address harvesting, so if 5321 or any other RFC requires
>accepting VRFY then we are all out of RFC compliance.
3.5.3. Meaning of VRFY or EXPN Success Response
Philippe Cerfon:
> Hi list.
>
> I was recently looking over my postfix config and RFC 5321 in order to
> see whether everything seems still to be compliant (not postfix,.. but
> my config ;) ).
>
> Then I stumbled accross the following:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.1.4 says:
> A
Len Conrad put forth on 12/26/2009 3:49 PM:
> Requiring HELO is hardly an RFC-abusive setting. I expect almost no legit,
> nor illegit, SMTP servers send EXPN or VRFY before helo,
I'll add that just about everyone disables VRFY these days to prevent valid
address harvesting, so if 5321 or any
>Hi list.
>
>I was recently looking over my postfix config and RFC 5321 in order to
>see whether everything seems still to be compliant (not postfix,.. but
>my config ;) ).
>
>Then I stumbled accross the following:
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.1.4 says:
>A session that will contai
21 matches
Mail list logo
