On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 02:43 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 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 now
> >>>
> >>> Surely, 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
> >> drawbacks
> >
> > Correct. 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
I would agree, gladly. If only I would not have these pictures in my
head of an admin creating that as a deliverability testing address. Same
ball park as a Subject of "test". I almost can hear his accent...
> > 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
Annoying? That was before using SA and with using catch-all, right?
So it was annoying back then. Doesn't explain why you're chasing it
today. How many of them can you find in your logs? Even including its
variants (e.g. "atall" appended), I assume the total number to be really
low. And, frankly, exclusively existent in SMTP logs rejecting the
message.
Unless there still is catch-all in effect, that should have been axed
some 10 years ago.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
