On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 20:51:01 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> > SpamAssassin usually deals with this problem by looking for
> > authentication in the header, but that's not recorded here.
>
> There is no auth hint in the header when using the submission server.
>
> Received: from [192.168.178.25
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 17.12.2016, 13:17 + schrieb RW:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
> Marcus Schopen wrote:
>
>
> > The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> > for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
> >
> > Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by MY_S
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:41:49 +0100
Marcus Schopen wrote:
> The problem is, that smtp-out.myoffice.de is also a submission server
> for dialup clients. Headers from to to down:
>
> Received: from smtp-out.myoffice.de by MY_SERVER_IP
> Received: from dialup-client-IP by smtp-out.myoffice.de
SpamA
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:13:02 + (UTC)
Pedro David Marco wrote:
>
> i have this in my local.cf:
>
> trusted_networks 88.2.89.3
> ...
> [17721] dbg: received-header: relay 88.2.89.3 trusted? no
> internal? no msa? no
>
> is this normal?
It is if the chain of trust is alrea
ormal?
---PedroD
From: Martin
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: trusted_networks question...
From: Pedro David Marco [mailto:pedrod_ma...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:51
From: Pedro David Marco [mailto:pedrod_ma...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:51 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: trusted_networks question...
Hi there...
i have this in my local.cf:
trusted_networks88.2.890.3
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Alain Tesio wrote:
>
> Thanks for your help,
>
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
> > >
> > > I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to
> > > this IP in local.cf
> >
> > That's not
Thanks for your help,
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
> >
> > I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this
> > IP in local.cf
>
> That's not the same whitelisting. If you actually want to whitelist
> read the docs.
This co
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 05:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Alain Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
>
> I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this
> IP in local.cf
That's not the same whitelisting. If you actually want to whitelist
r
On 12.03.12 05:26, Alain Tesio wrote:
I'm using spamassassin 3.2.5 with Exim at smtp time on Debian.
old SA on apparently outdated, unsupported debian.
I'm trying to whitelist a single IP and set trusted_networks to this IP in
local.cf
It's not working, whereas other settings in this file ar
> Probably hit by a bug in NetAddr::IP, see:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6681
>
> Upgrade it to NetAddr-IP-4.055 or downgrade to 4.048.
Bingo! I upgraded to 4.056 and no more problem!
Apparently there'a a workaround, too, mentioned
in comment 20 above:
4.05
On 07.11.11 08:19, spamassas...@horizon.com wrote:
For some reason, spamassassin thinks that 0/0 is trusted, even after my
most strenuous attempts to dissuade it:
$ grep _networks /etc/spamassassin/*
/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:# trusted_networks 212.17.35.
/etc/spamassassin/local.cf:clear_truste
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:31:53 +0100, Mark Martinec wrote:
Upgrade it to NetAddr-IP-4.055 or downgrade to 4.048.
latest is 4.056
just cant find the line with 0/0 here :(
> For some reason, spamassassin thinks that 0/0 is trusted, even after my
> most strenuous attempts to dissuade it:
>
> $ grep _networks /etc/spamassassin/*
> /etc/spamassassin/local.cf:# trusted_networks 212.17.35.
> /etc/spamassassin/local.cf:clear_trusted_networks
> /etc/spamassassin/local.cf:t
On 7 Nov 2011 08:19:43 -0500, spamassas...@horizon.com wrote:
[snip]
The question, of course, is "WTF?"
no, what line is 0/0 in ?
are you sure that computer is not haveing ipv6 ? :=)
On 3/29/2010 11:40 AM, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
> I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option. Right now I have it
> set to:
>
> trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
>
> In postfix, I need to have spamassassin listed under
> "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" so that it will only scan incoming emails
> ho
> On 29.3.2010 18:40, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
> > I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option.
> Right now I have it set to:
> >
> > trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
> >
> > In postfix, I need to have spamassassin listed under
> "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" so that it will only scan
> incoming ema
On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 11:40 -0400, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
> I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option. Right now I have
> it set to:
>
> trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
> When I try to use this option; I login through telnet port 25, and send
> the test spam string (from the 10.0.1.0 subnet) i
On 29.3.2010 18:40, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
> I'm having a problem with the trusted_networks option. Right now I have it
> set to:
>
> trusted_networks 10.0.1/24
>
> In postfix, I need to have spamassassin listed under
> "smtpd_recipient_restrictions" so that it will only scan incoming emails
> how
On Tue, July 14, 2009 21:26, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> Duh. Dumb. Arrgh! Hit! Damn.
its rocket science :)
--
xpoint
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>> [snip]
>> when I put your lines in my config, I only seethe
>> 127.0.0.1/32 warning.
>>
>
>>>
>>> It looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
>
> I removed both the 127.0.0.1 AND 10/8 and this is happy again. It seems to
> configure the internal networks as tru
> Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>> I tried with this:
>>
>> -(local.cf)---
>>
>> internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
>> trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
>> trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24
>> 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98 trusted_networks
>> 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24
> Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>> I tried with this:
>>
>> -(local.cf)---
>>
>> internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
>> trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
>> trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24
>> 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98 trusted_networks
>> 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
> I tried with this:
>
> -(local.cf)---
>
> internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
> trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
> trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98
> trusted_networks 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0
On Tue, July 14, 2009 14:48, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> Yeah. My LAN is using 10/8 for hysterical reasons. Is there something wrong
> here?
just that your source have now rfc1918 ranges hardcorded into sa, so remove
your own internal/trsuted/msa for rfc1918 will solve it
ps: i have not seen the
Jari Fredriksson wrote:
I tried with this:
-(local.cf)---
internal_networks 10.0.0.0/8
trusted_networks 10.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.1
trusted_networks 212.16.98.0/24 212.16.100.0/24 62.142.0.0/16 195.197.172.98
trusted_networks 195.74.0.0/16 213.192.189.2/24 217.30.188.0/24 65.54.0.0/16
> On Tue, July 14, 2009 13:25, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>
>> [7594] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.1/32 as it
>> has already been included [7594] warn: netset: cannot
>> include 10.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included It
>> looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
>
> rfc1918
>
Yea
On Tue, July 14, 2009 13:25, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> [7594] warn: netset: cannot include 127.0.0.1/32 as it has already been
> included
> [7594] warn: netset: cannot include 10.0.0.0/8 as it has already been included
> It looks like SA itself configured the trusted.
rfc1918
sa 3.3 ?
--
xpo
> Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>>> MrGibbage a écrit :
#ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
internal_networks 75.119.219.171
trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
>>> no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
>>>
>>> Every entry in "internal_networks" must appe
>
> where did your squirrelmail go now ?
I use it when I'm not sitting at home. It is up on my server, but I do not use
it if I have access to my workstation.
I prefer Outlook Express with OE-QuoteFix over any other IMAP client I have
tested.
On Tue, July 14, 2009 00:42, mouss wrote:
> the requirement is "reasonable". an "internal" relay that wouldn't be
> "trusted" is irrelevant. why would you want to skip PBL/DUL lookup for
> an IP that may be forged?
if thats the problem the mail wont get delivered in the first place
--
xpoint
On Tue, July 14, 2009 00:08, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> so whenever you put an internal_network line, you should
>> add the same line with "trusted" instead of "internal".
> If that is indeed true, it is a BUG IMO.
> Brain dead requirement!
at least its open source so one can make a good patch to
On Mon, July 13, 2009 23:55, mouss wrote:
> so whenever you put an internal_network line, you should add the same
> line with "trusted" instead of "internal".
in other words, internal cant be untrusted
so if you see spam with origin as internal networks ip then remove that ip as
internal
--
x
Jari Fredriksson a écrit :
>> MrGibbage a écrit :
>>> #ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
>>> internal_networks 75.119.219.171
>>> trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
>> no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
>>
>> Every entry in "internal_networks" must appear in
>> "
> MrGibbage a écrit :
>> #ps11651.dreamhostps.com and pelorus.org
>> internal_networks 75.119.219.171
>> trusted_networks 75.119.219.171 #I think this is wrong
>
> no, it is not wrong. the documentation says:
>
> Every entry in "internal_networks" must appear in
> "trusted_net-
>
> works";
>
>
MrGibbage a écrit :
> I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and I guess
> I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should put for those
> two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking at the headers from
> an email? I can tell you that my SA instal
Wow, I had a feeling I was opening a can of worms here. This is one area
where I really feel the SA documentation could benefit by having some real
world examples.
Right now I am just going with the one internal_networks set to the ip of my
SA server. I'm not setting any trusted_networks. I fi
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:29:07 +0200 (CEST)
"Benny Pedersen" wrote:
>
> On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
> > Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
>
> no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
>
> forwarders is trusted/msa
If you do it that way
On Sun, July 12, 2009 16:21, RW wrote:
> Generally forwarders should go into your internal networks,
no no, internal networks is your own wan ips nothing more, imho
forwarders is trusted/msa
> unless they rewrite the return-path
why does this change ?
> or there is a possibility of mail submi
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
MrGibbage wrote:
>
> I have read the help pages for those two settings over and over, and
> I guess I'm just not smart enough. I can't figure out what I should
> put for those two settings. Can one of you give me a hand by looking
> at the headers from
Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/2008 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> >>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
> >>>
> >>> [20528] dbg: conf: trust
On 21/06/2008 10:45 PM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
>>>
>>> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
>>> that y
Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
> >
> > [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
> > that you configure trusted_networks manually
>
> This
On 21/06/2008 2:05 PM, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug
>>> flags:
>>>
>>> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured;
>>> it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks
>>> manually
On Sat, June 21, 2008 20:05, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> Should? What good is that lint anyway if it can't be used to test local rules?
spamassassin 2>&1 -D --lint | less
does it confirm ?
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
> On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> I see the following when running sa-update with debug
>> flags:
>>
>> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured;
>> it is recommended that you configure trusted_networks
>> manually
>
> This is expected and intentional. Your local cf
On 21/06/2008 1:10 AM, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
>
> [20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
> that you configure trusted_networks manually
This is expected and intentional. Your local cf files are not us
Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
> >
> >[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
> >that you configure trust
Nigel Frankcom wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
that you configure trusted_networks manually
However:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:10:53 -0400, Sahil Tandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I see the following when running sa-update with debug flags:
>
>[20528] dbg: conf: trusted_networks are not configured; it is recommended
>that you configure trusted_networks manually
>
>However:
>
># grep trusted /usr/l
On Sat, June 14, 2008 02:42, Chris wrote:
> Thanks, I'll discard it then, appreciate the help.
so one more time, you now test remote servers ip that use rfc1918 servers pools
waste
Benny Pedersen
Need more webspace ? http://www.servage.net/?coupon=cust37098
On Sat, June 14, 2008 02:09, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
>> Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
>> trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
>> Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
> I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
> I think your can t
John Hardin wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to
trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is incorrect...
Actually, that's no
On Friday 13 June 2008 7:09 pm, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
> >
> >trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
> >
> >Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
>
> I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
>
> I th
>Thank you, now my trusted_networks line looks like this:
>
>trusted_networks 192.168/16 208.47.184.3 208.47.184.2
>
>Is that correct? Do I need the 192.168/16 entry?
I don't have it, my 10/8 lan network.. in my trusted.
I think your can throw it away.
On Friday 13 June 2008 11:56 am, Jari Fredriksson wrote:
> >Should I put the IP for mailrelay.embarq.synacor.com on the
> > trusted_networks line? That comes out to be 208.47.184.3. I also had this
> > as internal_networks internal_networks 71.48.160.0/20, is that correct?
>
> Yes, if that mailrel
>Hmm, I'm on DSL, so, should I place my IP in trusted_networks?
No. Your IP address does not relay mail to you.
>For
>instance, I did have this "trusted_networks 192.168/16 71.48.160.0/20",
>however, looking at the received line of the post I initally made, my IP is
>now 71.51.96.186.
trusted_n
> On Thursday 12 June 2008 2:16 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > you should put at least your MX backups into trusted_networks AND
> > internal_networks, if there are any. You may put other servers, not under
> > your control, to trusted_networks, if you trust them not to originate spam.
> >
>
On 12.06.08 10:25, John Hardin wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>
> >You may put other servers, not under your control, to trusted_networks,
> >if you trust them not to originate spam.
> ^
>
> Matus, I believe that assertion is i
On Thursday 12 June 2008 2:16 am, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 11.06.08 21:11, Chris wrote:
> > If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted
> > networks line to be set in my local.cf? If so, what addresses would I
> > enter there? I'm asking this because of this line
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
You may put other servers, not under your control, to trusted_networks,
if you trust them not to originate spam.
^
Matus, I believe that assertion is incorrect...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ
On 11.06.08 21:11, Chris wrote:
> If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted networks
> line to be set in my local.cf? If so, what addresses would I enter there?
> I'm asking this because of this line in the Wiki:
>
> Generally you want trusted_networks set to contain al
Chris wrote:
If I do not control any mail servers is it necessary for the trusted networks
line to be set in my local.cf?
In most cases you want to trust all the mailservers the MX back. If you
don't control any mailservers at all, then you would substitute to
trusting your ISPs mailsers.
I
> > For this, SA 3.2.* has its own rules for DNSWL, which you throw away
> > with your custom rule, since they are identically named. The built-in
> > rule for SA 3.2.* is:
> >
> > header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW eval:check_rbl_sub('dnswl-firsttrusted',
> > '127.0.\d+.1')
> > describe RCVD_IN_DNSW
On 18.10.07 17:32, Lars Ippich wrote:
> >> Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
> >> trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
> >> from SA.
I guess that's the meaning of trusted_networks setting (or at least one of
its meanings)
>
Alex,
> For this, SA 3.2.* has its own rules for DNSWL, which you throw away
> with your custom rule, since they are identically named. The built-in
> rule for SA 3.2.* is:
>
> header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW eval:check_rbl_sub('dnswl-firsttrusted',
> '127.0.\d+.1')
> describe RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
Lars Ippich schrieb am 18.10.2007 09:32:
header RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOWX-DNS-Whitelist =~ /^low/
scoreRCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW-1
describe RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOWSender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low trust
[...]
# web.de
trusted_networks217.72.192.
2) Postfix adds the X-DNS-Whit
Matthias,
>> Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
>> trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
>> from SA.
>
> Hm, somehow I can't follow what you're trying to do. Can you post the
> relevant parts of your configuration?
Sure:
>
> Now I added IPs to trusted_networks and that causes another problem: The
> trusted_network IPs are in the DNSWL and therefore get a positive bonus
> from SA.
Hm, somehow I can't follow what you're trying to do. Can you post the
relevant parts of your configuration?
> I did not find a solution
ram01 wrote:
Drop the node part of the address i.e. if I wanted 10.1.1.0/24 use 10.1.1/24
That actually makes no difference.
Drop the node part of the address i.e. if I wanted 10.1.1.0/24 use 10.1.1/24
Peter Russell-4 wrote:
>
> Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
> [2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
> [2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Peter Russell wrote:
> I have the following set for trusted networks
> trusted_networks xx.1.0.0/16, xx.2.0.0/16, xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24, 127.0.0.0/8
>
> What have i dont wrong?
Lose the commas.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PRO
Peter Russell wrote:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16,'
[2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24,'
I have the fol
* Peter Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
> [2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.1.0.0/16,'
> [2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xx.2.0.0/16,'
> [2832] warn: netset: illegal network address given: 'xxx.xxx.xxx.
Sorry, answered it myself - i had coffee, looked at it again and removed
the commas. Copy n paste from main.cf to local.cf might not always be
the best way to approach config changes for SA :)
Sorry to bother you
Peter Russell wrote:
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[283
xx and xxx are not integers between 0 and 255.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Peter Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:19 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Trusted_networks
Hello, i notice after a lint test the following errors
[2832] warn: netse
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 03:55 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
...
>
> Hopefully I've clarified any remaining questions about this. If I
> haven't maybe Matt, Bowie, Kelson or someone else will take a whack at
> it. I'm four hours into a public holiday so I now get to bill you twice
> as much!
On 6/30/2006 10:19 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on
On 6/30/2006 10:46 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can do one
of the following:
- have all your MSA users use SM
On 6/30/2006 11:08 PM, Ross Boylan wrote:
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
domain), and that I do
To clear up an ambiguity in my original:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 19:19 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Does a machine that is not part of my domain qualify as a client?
> Suppose my MTA is contacted by a dial-up IP for somewhere.com (not my
> domain), and that I do want to accept such mail.
The human c
Now for the "3 tests" as they apply to my non-hypothetical case.
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 01:45 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
[..]
> Mail Submission Agent... accepts mail from your own clients' MUAs (also
> known as UAs).
>
>
> >> You can not add your MSA to your internal_networks unless you can
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 18:00 -0400, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
> the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
> fill that in).
My setup is a bit more complex than the one described here; I said
"assume f
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This inspired me to make a brute force test. Something has changed in
the machine's configuration that allows me to remove all references to
internal or trusted networks and still run without ALL_TRUSTED coming
up and bugging me. Maybe those entrie
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Earthlink mail servers are ABSODAMNLUTELY not part
of my internal network. But if I do not list them with tr
I'm going to skip to the end pretty quick... where I tell you exactly
the config YOU need (except I don't know your IPs, so you'll have to
fill that in).
Ross Boylan wrote:
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that r
Ben Wylie wrote:
No. Internal only if it's not directly accepting mail from client IPs
that you WANT to accept mail from. MXes and everything (internal
relays) after them are ALWAYS in both trusted and internal networks.
>
> This is what tells SA that mail was sent directly from "questionab
Well, I've obviously missed something. In this message I will focus
exclusively on the question of whether a host that receives messages
from dial-up hosts should go on internal_networks. Assume for
simplicity I have a mail domain b.c. The MX records point to a.b.c.
I'm running SA on a.b.c for m
No. Internal only if it's not directly accepting mail from client IPs
that you WANT to accept mail from. MXes and everything (internal
relays) after them are ALWAYS in both trusted and internal networks.
>
> This is what tells SA that mail was sent directly from "questionable
> IPs" to your sy
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances w
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as
jdow wrote:
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trus
jdow wrote:
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
One example is when
From: "John D. Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
What, you
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
trusted?
NEVER.
From: "Bart Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
EVERYTHING after an MX MUST be listed as BOTH trusted and internal
networks.
Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not trusted?
One example is when you are using
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ross Boylan wrote:
...
Maybe it will help to be concrete. I'll use made up names to foil
spambots:
People send me mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] b.edu has an MX record. I use
fetchmail to pull my mail off a.b.edu, the actual host machine the MX
re
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> Bart Schaefer wrote:
> >
> > Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> > trusted?
>
> NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
> misconfiguration.
What, you *trust* all your users? :)
--
Joh
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 6/29/06, Daryl C. W. O'Shea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
>
> Under what circumstances would one list something as internal but not
> trusted?
NEVER. Newer versions of SA won't even allow you to make that
misconfiguration.
Ah, good. That's as I expe
1 - 100 of 212 matches
Mail list logo
