On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>>> However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
>>> *any* IP address in the form [X.X.X.X], the smtpd_helo_restrictions
>>> won't trigger.
>> This is both legal and reasonab
Am 13.09.2014 um 15:10 schrieb LuKreme:
> On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
*any* IP address in the form [X.X.X.X], the smtpd_helo_restrictions
wo
Am 13.09.2014 um 15:10 schrieb LuKreme:
> On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
*any* IP address in the form [X.X.X.X], the smtpd_helo_restrictions
w
> On 13 Sep 2014, at 07:35 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.09.2014 um 15:10 schrieb LuKreme:
>> On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
> However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
> *any* IP a
Am 13.09.2014 um 19:12 schrieb LuKreme:
>> On 13 Sep 2014, at 07:35 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>
>> Am 13.09.2014 um 15:10 schrieb LuKreme:
>>> On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>> However, any time I connect via telnet
li...@rhsoft.net:
> >> and only because people continue to tell it is reasonable instead block
> >> such connections
> >
> > It would be a burden on YOU to convince people (well Wietse) that it is not
> > reasonable
>
> check_helo_access exists
Children, stop quarreling. Postfix already has th
Am 13.09.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Wietse Venema:
> li...@rhsoft.net:
and only because people continue to tell it is reasonable instead block
such connections
>>>
>>> It would be a burden on YOU to convince people (well Wietse) that it is not
>>> reasonable
>>
>> check_helo_access exists
>
Hello Viktor,
On 10.09.14, 22:59, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:46:43PM +0200, giacomo wrote:
>
> > > So you're using Cyrus SASL, but not showing any details of the SASL
> > > configuration, available plugins, ...
> > >
> >
> > The configuration of SASL is in /usr/local/l
On 13 Sep 2014, at 11:48 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> check_helo_access exists
Exactly, so what is the problem? You seemed very unhappy that neither
reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname nor reject_unknown_helo_hostname rejected
numerical helos and seemed to be taking the position that they should.
I do
Am 13.09.2014 um 22:42 schrieb LuKreme:
> On 13 Sep 2014, at 11:48 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> check_helo_access exists
>
> Exactly, so what is the problem? You seemed very unhappy
the next time you respond to something read the thread
i only commented the "reasonable" until you stepped in
On Sep 12, 2014, at 1:55 PM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
>>> However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
>>> *any* IP address in the form [X.X.X.X], the smtpd_helo_restrictions
>>> won't trigger.
>> This is both legal and r
On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:35 AM, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>
> Am 13.09.2014 um 15:10 schrieb LuKreme:
>> On 12 Sep 2014, at 13:55 , li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>>> Am 12.09.2014 um 21:49 schrieb Philip Prindeville:
> However, any time I connect via telnet to this server and specify
> *any* IP add
Philip Prindeville:
> Who says anything about mail servers? What if it's an MUA doing
> this?
If the MUA connects to the MX service (port25) then it is an issue.
If the MUA connects to port 587, then the server should not block
HELO, and instead it should require that the client authenticates.
On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:59 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Philip Prindeville:
>> Who says anything about mail servers? What if it's an MUA doing
>> this?
>
> If the MUA connects to the MX service (port25) then it is an issue.
>
> If the MUA connects to port 587, then the server should not block
> H
On Sep 13, 2014, at 7:59 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Philip Prindeville:
>> Who says anything about mail servers? What if it's an MUA doing
>> this?
>
> If the MUA connects to the MX service (port25) then it is an issue.
>
> If the MUA connects to port 587, then the server should not block
> H
15 matches
Mail list logo