Am 05.10.2014 um 02:27 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:
On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 01:53 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:Am 05.10.2014 um 01:41 schrieb Karsten Bräckelmann:On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 22:15 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:i recently found "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" as sender as well as "thisisjusttestletter@random-of-our-domains" as RCPT in my logs and remember that crap for many years nowSurely, SA would never see that message, since that's not an actual, valid address at your domain. And you're not using catch-all, do you? (Yes, that question is somewhere between rhetoric and sarcastic.)but "thisisjusttestletter@random-domain" is a valid address in his domain until you prove the opposite with sender-verification and it's drawbacksCorrect. And it is unsafe to assume any given address local part could not possibly be valid and used as sender address in ham.
most - any excludes that one honestly
If at all, such tests should be assigned a low-ish score, not used in SMTP access map blacklisting. However, I seriously doubt it's actually worthwhile to maintain such rules.
agreed - i only asked if there are known other local parts of that sort because i noticed that one at least 5 years ago as annoying
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
