On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:08:26PM -0300, Aecio F. Neto wrote:
> > Anyway - you simply want qmail to do something that it's design
> > precludes it from doing (qmail-smtpd simply does not have PERMISSIONS
> > to check weather the recepient exists. It was made that way because of
>
> Not true, ther
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 11/06/2005 10:00:29:
> Anyway - you simply want qmail to do something that it's design
> precludes it from doing (qmail-smtpd simply does not have PERMISSIONS
> to check weather the recepient exists. It was made that way because
of
> security issues - any bug in SMTP co
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 03:25:35PM +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> On Friday 10 June 2005 2:02 pm, Aecio F. Neto wrote:
> > It is legitimate to bounce messages, according to SMTP RFC. It is not
> > qmail only that bounces, but all MTAs that follows this RFC (sorry, I
> > don't recall its number right
>> On Friday 10 June 2005 1:49 pm, Jason Haar wrote:
>> > Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>> > >Maybe my installation is non-standard but again, in my experience, the
>> > >catch-all address collects this mail and doesn't subsequently bounce it so
>> > >No, it's not broken.
>> >
>> > I do that too - but that's
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 10/06/2005 00:25:35:
> We're all happy to discard viruses without bouncing them.
> We're even OK with the idea of discarding SPAM without notifying the"sender".
> It's not hard to conclude that bouncing in these two cases is utterly
wrong,
> despite what the RFCs may
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 09/06/2005 22:49:27:
> Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>
> >No I'm not. Read what I wrote. "If an MTA does accept email
for delivery, it
> >should NEVER bounce it"
Qmail, due to its modular architecture does accept
message and decide to bounce later in its chain. You need to und
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
No I'm not. Read what I wrote. "If an MTA does accept email for delivery, it
should NEVER bounce it"
In my experience with qmail (which I'll fully admit is not extensive), I don't
believe it behaves in the manner I'm complaining about. I don't think it
bounces mail for un
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 15:59:14 +1200 Jeremy Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no problem that qmail will *accept* the messages but I'm not happy
> that
> it *bounces* them AFTER they've been accepted. (I'm still not sure that it
> does this by default.)
Usually it does not accept them (w
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 00:42 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> You're coming at this too late. The RFCs only require the MTA send a
> bounce if it is unable to deliver mail that it has *accepted*. I'm
> arguing that the MTA should not have accepted it in the first place if
> it can determine beforehan
Adam Goryachev wrote:
well, any MTA which follows the RFC (ie, any proper MTA, which might
exclude some crappy ones - no names) is *required* to send a bounce if
it isn't able to successfully deliver the message.
You're coming at this too late. The RFCs only require the MTA send a
bounce if it
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 15:59 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 3:34 pm, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:58 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> > > I know Exchange does this but I wasn't aware that the default qmail
> > > installation bounced messages. I thought the de
>>
>> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:58 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>> > On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:20 am, Jason Haar wrote:
>> > > Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>> > > "ignorant mail-admins" just about defines every standard Qmail install
>> > > out there. That's exactly what Qmail does (and Exchange BTW).
>> >
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:58 +1200, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> On Thursday 09 June 2005 11:20 am, Jason Haar wrote:
> > Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> > "ignorant mail-admins" just about defines every standard Qmail install
> > out there. That's exactly what Qmail does (and Exchange BTW).
>
> I know Exchange doe
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
If ignorant mail-admins didn't accept the spam and *then* bounce it, we
wouldn't have this problem. Unfortunately, far too many servers are set up to
happily accept whatever is sent to them and then try to bounce it to the
(invariably) forged "From" address.
Kiaora Je
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 June 2005 10:28 pm, Pamcho wrote:
> > Anyone knows about a kind of SPAM that is send to a domain, to addresses
> > like:
> >
> > "something strange"@domain
> >
> > thousands a day, and from multiple IP sources?
>
> Sure. I've be
Anyone knows about a kind of SPAM that is send to a domain, to addresses
like:
"something strange"@domain
thousands a day, and from multiple IP sources?
Mi mail server receive one of these attacks and stacks the qmail queue, so
the "local queue" grows and grows...
Is there any
16 matches
Mail list logo
