On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 01:30 -0500, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 03:40 PM 12/6/2004 +1300, Jason Haar wrote:
> >>Ahh, but this can never happen over the open internet. When the NATed 
> >>sender sends mail to your NATed server, the server will not see the mail 
> >>as coming from 192.168/16. It will see the sender's public, post-nat IP.
> >
> >To put it more bluntly, the trusted_networks checks are only against the 
> >last (i.e. newest) Received: header IP addresses.
> 
> That's just false. Completely false. Trusted will work it's way back from 
> the newest Recieved header and continue until it hits one with an untrusted 
> host. There's no limit to the number of Received: headers it can consider 
> trusted. It certainly can trust more than just the one.
> 
> The OP was suggesting that this could cause problems if both sides NATed 
> and you trust 192.168/16. But that can't happen, because the NATed source 
> will still appear as an untrusted IP, not 192.168./24, stoping the trust 
> path cold.
> 
> >So for your gateway to be receiving the SMTP connection, that Received: 
> >header would contain a real Internet IP address - or it was a connection 
> >from one of your own internally-NATted IP addresses - either way, the 
> >check should work.
> 
> Yes, that's fine, but SA does have trust issues if your mailserver itself 
> is NATed and will resolve it's own "by xxx.example.com" name as a reserved IP.
> 
> >I too was having difficulty with ALL_TRUSTED firing on incoming Internet 
> >mail a month ago, but it's all fixed now (I don't know if 3.0.1 fixed it? 
> >Can't remember)
> 
> Shouldn't have. There's been no change to the trust code, or ALL_TRUSTED in 
> 3.0.1 vs 3.0.0. Perhaps you set trusted_networks?

Let me tell you what I'm seeing...

I set 127/8 and 24.173.79.19/32 as trusted networks.  ALL_TRUSTED fired
on a (spam) message which had 127.0.0.1 in the headers, even though that
machine was the originator of the message.

I now only have 24.173.79.19/32 as a trusted network (which seems silly
to me - it's not a network, it's a host).

Thomas

Reply via email to