Am 04.04.2011 03:08, schrieb Sahil Tandon:
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 02:38:14 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> [ .. ]
>
>> now you come even with "direct send from a notebook"
>> jesus christ this is really ignorant!
>
> Please, this is a technical mailing list; let's all try to minimize the
> edi
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 02:38:14 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
[ .. ]
> now you come even with "direct send from a notebook"
> jesus christ this is really ignorant!
Please, this is a technical mailing list; let's all try to minimize the
editorializing and insults.
--
Sahil Tandon
Am 04.04.2011 02:22, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>> why not?
>
> Because strictly speaking, due to NAT, the DNS would lie. I mean that
> the address would not be the address of the machine sending the mail,
> but the address of the router.
nobody out there is interested on your NAT
the server on th
On 2011-04-04 01:53:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > But the purpose of having a host in DNS is to be able to resolve it.
> > I mean: you can't have a real hostname in the DNS if it is on a private
> > network (unreachable because of NAT), can you? Well... I'm not sure.
> > See below
>
> why not
Am 04.04.2011 01:27, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> On 2011-04-01 23:51:39 +0200, mouss wrote:
>> we're not asking them to resolve their hostname. we're only asking them
>> to use a "real" name. it's as easy as
>> myhostname = joe.example.com
>>
>> with a "joe.example.com" that exists in DNS.
>
> But
On 2011-04-01 23:51:39 +0200, mouss wrote:
> we're not asking them to resolve their hostname. we're only asking them
> to use a "real" name. it's as easy as
> myhostname = joe.example.com
>
> with a "joe.example.com" that exists in DNS.
But the purpose of having a host in DNS is to be able to res
On 2011-04-01 17:45:01 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> when the server is down you can not send mails
> and you really will not die,
I repeat: When the server is down, I may *NEED* to send mail
(for various reasons, e.g. to send logs so that things can be
fixed, to warn some people that I can no lon
Le 01/04/2011 09:47, Vincent Lefevre a écrit :
> On 2011-03-31 21:16:16 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>> HELO checks are the primary defense against backscatter of this sort; I use
>> a simple subset of the available options:
>>
>> smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
>> reject_un
Le 01/04/2011 01:25, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> mouss put forth on 3/31/2011 4:38 PM:
>> Le 31/03/2011 17:52, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>>>
>>> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
>>> [66.117.14.32])
>>> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
>
Am 01.04.2011 17:32, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> On 2011-04-01 17:15:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>>> Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
>>> using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
>>> there
On 2011-04-01 17:15:41 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> > Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
> > using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
> > there is a reason for a fallback to direct SMTP to the de
Am 01.04.2011 17:07, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> Perhaps in your case, but when sending mail directly (i.e. without
> using SASL), I get a reject only once every few weeks. So, yes,
> there is a reason for a fallback to direct SMTP to the destination.
if you send mail directly you have to make
su
On 2011-04-01 11:31:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 01.04.2011 11:15, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>
> > I could now use SASL (this wasn't possible in the past because I didn't
> > have my own server), but there would still be problems to solve: how
> > can I use a fallback (on the client side)
Am 01.04.2011 11:15, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
> I could now use SASL (this wasn't possible in the past because I didn't
> have my own server), but there would still be problems to solve: how
> can I use a fallback (on the client side) to the direct method when for
> some reason, the server is not
On 2011-04-01 01:01:34 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Those machines should be talking to a public-facing MTA that
> tolerates unqualified names; they shouldn't be talking to the public
> Internet with an unqualified name.
The main smarthost of my ISP gets blacklisted by some lists each time
Am 01.04.2011 09:47, schrieb Vincent Lefevre:
>> Where helo_access contains my own IPs and hostnames.
>>
>> This setup will reject an AMAZING amount of spam.
>> Fair warning: it may also yield the occasional false positive due to a
>> misconfigured client mail system!
>> The usual warn_if_reject wi
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
> [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Lefevre
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:47 AM
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Subject: Re: SMTP client host name spoofing
>
> I reall
On 2011-03-31 21:16:16 +0200, Jeroen Geilman wrote:
> HELO checks are the primary defense against backscatter of this sort; I use
> a simple subset of the available options:
>
> smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
> reject_unknown_helo_hostname, reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
>
mouss put forth on 3/31/2011 4:38 PM:
> Le 31/03/2011 17:52, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>>
>> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
>> [66.117.14.32])
>> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
>> for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
>>
>>
Le 31/03/2011 17:52, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>
> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
> [66.117.14.32])
> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
> for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
>
>
> biz88.inmotionhosting.com is the reverse
Jeroen Geilman put forth on 3/31/2011 2:16 PM:
> Backscatter can be a HUGE problem, especially when spammers send you
> bounces (with the empty mailer-daemon sender address <>), since you MUST
> accept those.
Spammers don't send backscatter bounces. The victim MX hosts do, by
definition. In thi
On 03/31/2011 07:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/31/2011 11:42 AM:
Stan Hoeppner:
Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
[66.117.14.32])
by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
for; Thu, 31 Mar
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 01:01:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >Extended-Domain = Domain /
> > ( Domain FWS "(" TCP-info ")" ) /
> > ( address-literal FWS "(" TCP-info ")" )
> >
> >TCP-info = address-literal / ( Domain FWS address-l
Victor Duchovni put forth on 3/31/2011 12:44 PM:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:20:58PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> No, the "google" name is just the EHLO parameter sent by the client,
>>> it is not derived from DNS lookups and not verified.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification Viktor. I can't
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:20:58PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > No, the "google" name is just the EHLO parameter sent by the client,
> > it is not derived from DNS lookups and not verified.
>
> Thanks for the clarification Viktor. I can't seem to locate any
> documentation on the official Pos
Wietse Venema put forth on 3/31/2011 11:42 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
>> [66.117.14.32])
>> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
>> for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
>>
>
> The format is:
>
>
Victor Duchovni put forth on 3/31/2011 10:57 AM:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:52:58AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
>> [66.117.14.32])
>> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
>> for ; Thu, 31 M
Stan Hoeppner:
> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
> [66.117.14.32])
> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
> for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
>
The format is:
Received: from helo-hostname (verified-reverse-name [ip-a
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:52:58AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
> [66.117.14.32])
> by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
> for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
>
>
> biz88.inmotionhosting.co
Received: from mail-iw0-f176.google.com (biz88.inmotionhosting.com
[66.117.14.32])
by greer.hardwarefreak.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F297D6C12E
for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:29:19 -0500
biz88.inmotionhosting.com is the reverse name and
mail-iw0-f176.google.com is the forward name, c
30 matches
Mail list logo
