d is a valid principal host domain name for the
>> client host.
>>
>> But then there's this:
>>
>>However, the receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if
>>the sender's HELO command fails verification.
>>
>> My interpretation is that with reject_no
in name for the
> client host.
>
> But then there's this:
>
>However, the receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if
>the sender's HELO command fails verification.
>
> My interpretation is that with reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, postfix
> violat
mmand is a valid principal host domain name for the
> client host.
>
> But then there's this:
>
>However, the receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if
>the sender's HELO command fails verification.
>
> My interpretation is that with reject
r, the receiver MUST NOT refuse to accept a message, even if
the sender's HELO command fails verification.
My interpretation is that with reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname, postfix
violates that MUST NOT. Is my interpretation correct? If that is so,
perhaps docs should be updated pointing t
This attempts to clarify the description for
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. There seems to be end-user confusion
about whether this feature should also reject address literals,
which of course it is not intended to.
*** proto/postconf.protoWed Jul 10 19:01:20 2013
--- /tmp/tmp
On 6/9/2013 12:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:17:19AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
>
>> Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
>> 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
>> 'reject_unknown_helo_
Wietse Venema:
> This thread is terminated, as is the poster's membership.
>
> Wietse
This thread is terminated, as is the poster's membership.
Wietse
Nikolas Kallis:
> On 10/06/13 03:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:07:59AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> >
> >>>> Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
> >>>> 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname'
On 10/06/13 03:11, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:07:59AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
'reject_unknown_helo_hostname'?
You seem to have dec
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:07:59AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> >>Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
> >>'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
> >>'reject_unknown_helo_hostname'?
> >
> >You
On 10/06/13 03:00, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:17:19AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
'reject_unknown_helo_hostname'?
You seem to have dec
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:17:19AM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
> 'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
> 'reject_unknown_helo_hostname'?
You seem to have decided that the client HELO name
Is using 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' even neccessary when using
'reject_unknown_helo_hostname'?
The way I see it is if there is no FQDN and the host name is invalid,
then 'reject_unknown_helo_hostname' won'
On 08/06/13 17:49, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Nikolas, please do not reply off-list. Always reply to the list unless
there is a good reason not to (such as a shouting argument with another
user, a thread drifts wildly off topic, you are asked to, etc).
On 6/7/2013 11:20 PM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
On
Nikolas, please do not reply off-list. Always reply to the list unless
there is a good reason not to (such as a shouting argument with another
user, a thread drifts wildly off topic, you are asked to, etc).
On 6/7/2013 11:20 PM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> On 08/06/13 14:09, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> O
From what I understand, 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' and
'reject_invalid_helo_hostname' detect malformed 'helo', but
'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' does not detect malformed 'helo' if
'helo' is a malformed addr
On 6/7/2013 11:28 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> Generally only internal systems and spammers use IP literals for the
> HELO hostname. I wouldn't recommend it.
Absolutely.
> I would suggest not using "123-243-137-139.static.tpgi.com.au" as
> your HELO, since that's what all the spam bots do. Some fol
m'
> is not a FQDN.
$ host 46.235.78.1
Host 1.78.235.46.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname triggers on NXDOMAIN. This has
nothing to do with HELO, but a reverse lookup of the client IP address.
> I have 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
#x27; as the host name of my mail server, would a
> Postfix-based e-mail server enforcing
> 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' accept my mail, or would the PTR
> record have to resolve to '123.243.137.139' exactly (not
> '123-243-137-138.static.tpgi.com.au')?
&
On 07/06/13 23:29, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:16, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com',
which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not
Am 2013-06-07 15:16, schrieb Nikolas Kallis:
I thought for a domain to be fully qualified, it must have a PTR
record setup for it?
No, fully qualified means that all domain name components up to the top
level domain are specified.
While you can generally expect that fully qualified domain name
On 07/06/2013 14:16, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbm
Not at all. asgljgsglhg.aergohgergearguaoreg.gaegergheagaerhgaerhgopaeg is just
as much an FQDN as mail.google.com.
Ron Scott-Adams
r...@tohuw.net
"Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly
in the long run." (Mark Twain)
On Jun 7, 2013, at 09:16 , Nikol
On 07/06/13 23:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
'bbbmail.com' is a
Le 07/06/2013 15:11, Mark Goodge a écrit :
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
'bbbmail.com'
On 07/06/2013 14:06, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
'bbbmail.com' is a fully qualified domain name. That is c
Hello,
I just got an unsolicited e-mail from the domain 'bbbmail.com', which is
hosted at '46.235.78.1'.
'46.235.78.1' does not resolve to a host name, therefore 'bbbmail.com'
is not a FQDN.
I have 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' ena
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 10:46:46PM +1000, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> (...) 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' (...)
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname will make your life miserable and block
very little spam, assuming this third reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
related thread of yours is still ab
e-mail server
enforcing 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname' accept my mail, or would the
PTR record have to resolve to '123.243.137.139' exactly (not
'123-243-137-138.static.tpgi.com.au')?
There is allot I don't know about DNS. Does anyone know if a PTR record
can be set to resolve to an IP address?
- Thanks
Regards,
Nikolas Kallis
Wietse Venema:
> Nikolas Kallis:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
> > causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
> > literal as their 'helo' command.
>
On 6/7/2013 5:46 AM, Nikolas Kallis wrote:
> Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
> causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
> literal as their 'helo' command.
>
> This in breach of RFC 2821 under sec
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
Your claim is valid. Address literals in HELO must be enclosed in [].
I am a little confused. Were yo
Nikolas Kallis:
> Hello,
>
> Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
> causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
> literal as their 'helo' command.
Your claim is valid. Address literals in HELO must be enclosed in [].
Wietse
Hello,
Postfix has a bug in it where argument 'reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname'
causes Postfix to reject mail from a client who is using an address
literal as their 'helo' command.
This in breach of RFC 2821 under section 4.1.1.1.
Regards,
Nikolas Kallis
at 02:21:50PM +, Mike's unattended mail
wrote:
> On 2012-10-21, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > I may be wrong, but I don't think that
> > reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname will reject an IP address EHLO. At
> > least, the implication of the docuementation is that it
Le 11/11/2011 00:45, Steve Fatula a écrit :
> This check says that the RFC requires a fully qualified hostname for HELO.
> Most internet searches show this to be a "safe" check that shouldn't really
> kill any real mail. Lately, noticed no ebay mail was coming through, looked
> through the logs
From: Murray S. Kucherawy
>To: Steve Fatula ; "simon.brere...@buongiorno.com"
>; postfix users
>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 3:19 PM
>Subject: RE: reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname usefulness, safety
>
>
>Just heard back from them:
>
>“Murray, FYI, I wa
erawy
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 11:47 PM
To: Steve Fatula; simon.brere...@buongiorno.com; postfix users
Subject: RE: reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname usefulness, safety
I've forwarded this to some standards and practices compliance people inside
eBay/PayPal. I bet they'll be quite
-MSK
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org]
On Behalf Of Steve Fatula
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:04 PM
To: simon.brere...@buongiorno.com; postfix users
Subject: Re: reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname usefulness, safety
From: Simon Brereton
mailto:s
From: Simon Brereton
>To: postfix users
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:26 PM
>Subject: Re: reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname usefulness, safety
>
>
>
>Write them a note with the RFC I say. Standards are no good if you
>let yours slip because it's Ebay. or G
On 10 November 2011 18:45, Steve Fatula wrote:
> This check says that the RFC requires a fully qualified hostname for HELO.
> Most internet searches show this to be a "safe" check that shouldn't really
> kill any real mail. Lately, noticed no ebay mail was coming through, looked
> through the logs
block mail from a rather well known common mailer, I
> am starting to wonder how safe this check really is. Perhaps it's
> not so safe. Yes, that is a configuration error on ebays part,
> but, I don't think you really want to block ebay mail.
This is news to me, as I often sing
From: Jeroen Geilman
>To: postfix-users@postfix.org
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 6:13 PM
>Subject: Re: reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname usefulness, safety
>
>
>I have seen it too, on bulk mailer software (as ebay's probably is), but my
>logs from the past 6 wee
mains from the
check, use a client access check in your smtpd_helo_restrictions - and
move the helo checks there, too:
smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_whitelist,
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname
And in /etc/postfix/helo_
This check says that the RFC requires a fully qualified hostname for HELO. Most
internet searches show this to be a "safe" check that shouldn't really kill any
real mail. Lately, noticed no ebay mail was coming through, looked through the
logs and see entires like:
Nov 9 20:30:58 host2 postfix
correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What have I configured
incorrectly that allowed this spam through?
Postfix's reject_non_fqdn_mumble features were intended to stop
hosts that announce themselves by their netb
slipped through that I believe should have
>> been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What have I configured
>> incorrectly that allowed this spam through?
>
> Postfix's reject_non_fqdn_mumble features were intended to stop
> hosts that announce themselves by
Stan Hoeppner:
> Does Postfix consider "architettobellucci.com" an FQDN? I've always
> understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
> of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
> been rejected by re
Does Postfix consider "architettobellucci.com" an FQDN? I've always
understood an FQDN as requiring all 3 of host.domain.tld. If my understanding
of FQDN is correct, then a spam slipped through that I believe should have
been rejected by reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname. What ha
50 matches
Mail list logo
