On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Dominic Raferd wrote:
I recently started using an RBL service where we have a 'private key' and
this operates very simply by prefixing the key to the RBL address. But I
just realised that this appears to mean that for any rejections the whole
address - including the key - is
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Dominic Raferd:
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Wietse Venema
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dominic Raferd:
> > > > Thanks Christian that was very helpful. I have it working now for
> > > > postscreen and I think (but am waiting for an incoming instanc
Dominic Raferd:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Dominic Raferd:
> > > Thanks Christian that was very helpful. I have it working now for
> > > postscreen and I think (but am waiting for an incoming instance) for
> > > smtpd. Weird
> > > that they have such different appr
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Dominic Raferd:
> > Thanks Christian that was very helpful. I have it working now for
> > postscreen and I think (but am waiting for an incoming instance) for
> > smtpd. Weird
> > that they have such different approaches (postscreen_dnsbl_reply
Dominic Raferd:
> Thanks Christian that was very helpful. I have it working now for
> postscreen and I think (but am waiting for an incoming instance) for
> smtpd. Weird
> that they have such different approaches (postscreen_dnsbl_reply_map and
> rbl_reply_maps). And I could not find a way to use p
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 09:13, Christian Kivalo
wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-01-16 09:47, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> > I recently started using an RBL service where we have a 'private key'
> > and this operates very simply by prefixing the key to the RBL address.
> > But I just realised that this appears to
On 2020-01-16 08:48 GMT, Dominic Raferd wrote:
> Is there a way to cut out this private key in the response message? It
> happens both with postscreen and smtpd. Here is a barely-obfuscated example:
>
> 550 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [51.88.120.222] blocked using
> sp8lefi4grtb7jftpslxxztu3
On 2020-01-16 09:47, Dominic Raferd wrote:
I recently started using an RBL service where we have a 'private key'
and this operates very simply by prefixing the key to the RBL address.
But I just realised that this appears to mean that for any rejections
the whole address - including the key -
I recently started using an RBL service where we have a 'private key' and
this operates very simply by prefixing the key to the RBL address. But I
just realised that this appears to mean that for any rejections the whole
address - including the key - is passed back to the offending client. Which
if
