List Mail User a écrit :
>
> So we find it is actually not only *not* contained with RFC2821
> any requirement that the HELO/EHLO argument resolve to/match the client IP,
> but we find an explicit prohibition on refusing a transaction because of
> the lack of match. For those administrators
Craig White a écrit :
> This is a bit argumentative and I don't wish to feed this but...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FQDN
shorter is
http://www.menandmice.com/online_docs_and_faq/glossary/glossarytoc.htm?fqdn.htm
In both, there is no "fqdn >= N dots".
I could also go the way of
http://hom
>...
mous replied to my comments (originally directly to Kai):
>List Mail User a écrit :
>[snip]
>> Leave the FQDN part out and you can try to base an argument on 2821,
>> but there sections 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 simply and clearly states that "Domain
>> names are used as names of hosts and of oth
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 04:04 +0100, mouss wrote:
> Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> > Mouss wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:56:22 +0100:
> >
> >
> >>"localhost" is an fqdn with no dots
> >
> >
> > No FQDN.
> >
>
> Prove it.
This is a bit argumentative and I don't wish to feed this but...
http://en.
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> Søren Therkelsen wrote on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:30:10 +0100:
>
>
>>Received: from [218.65.120.230] (helo=uwo.ca)
>>--Why should a Canadian university have there
>>mail server in China?
>
>
> Why not? The answer may be obvious in this case, bu
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> wrote on 17 Dec 2005 22:25:17 -:
>
>
>>So what would be wrong with one dedicated computer acting as both a webserver
>>and mailserver?
>>Its real identity in that case is just companysite.com - and it has proper
>>dns / rdns entries.
>
>
> That is unusual, but i
Kai Schaetzl a écrit :
> Mouss wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:56:22 +0100:
>
>
>>"localhost" is an fqdn with no dots
>
>
> No FQDN.
>
Prove it.
Chris a écrit :
> While I agree with most of what you outlined (I too experiance tons of
> issues with the nes SA/Amavisd combo) - My mailsystem won't work (at
> least I don't think so) under this config.
unless you can measure and check what causes the real problems, ther's
no point in trying to
Chris wrote on Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:44:47 -0600:
> I considered Mailscanner
Good step. Lots of options, nice web interface and bulk scanning of
messages.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
SickBoy wrote:
> mouss wrote:
>
>>Chris a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Can a mail server just be Postfix, ClamAV, and SA without the need for
>>>Mailscanner or Amavis?
>>>
>>>If so - I would like to see a how-to is someone has one.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>yes, but why? you can use clamsmtp[d] for clamav. but if you're u
mouss wrote:
> Chris a écrit :
>
>> Can a mail server just be Postfix, ClamAV, and SA without the need for
>> Mailscanner or Amavis?
>>
>> If so - I would like to see a how-to is someone has one.
>>
>>
>
> yes, but why? you can use clamsmtp[d] for clamav. but if you're using
> SA, then amavisd-ne
From: "Matt Kettler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 03:56 PM 12/17/2005, Pollywog wrote:
On 12/17/2005 07:19 pm, Matt Kettler wrote:
> Spammers of any decent sophistication have rather extensive networks of
> zombies at their disposal that the can co-ordinate.
>
> Does this surprise you at all?
Yes,
Mouss wrote on Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:56:22 +0100:
> "localhost" is an fqdn with no dots
No FQDN.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
wrote on 17 Dec 2005 22:25:17 -:
> So what would be wrong with one dedicated computer acting as both a webserver
> and mailserver?
> Its real identity in that case is just companysite.com - and it has proper
> dns / rdns entries.
That is unusual, but it doesn't violate 2821.
Kai
--
Kai
14 matches
Mail list logo
