First of all, thanks for wonderful package maintenance, guys.
First question, is there any hidden sense in accepting any local mail
without checking local part? It seems to me non, thus asking.
I.e.
| -*- conf -*
acl_check_rcpt:
# Accept if the source is local SMTP (i.e. not over TCP/IP). We do this by
# testing for an empty sending host field.
accept
hosts = :
...
| -*-
Instead of doing first
| -*-
acl_check_rcpt:
require
verify = recipient
...
| -*-
Second. Is there easy way of getting rid of garbage like this?
| -*- garbage -*-
2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so
on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>"
H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85.
108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free
gift box with every
VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR:
white"> unl </
span>ch ordered. Y"
| -*-
Thanks.
____
On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:32:08AM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote:> First question, is there any hidden sense in accepting any local mail > without checking local part? It seems to me non, thus asking. > > I.e. > > | -*- conf -* > acl_check_rcpt: > > # Accept if the source is local SMTP (i.e. not over TCP/IP). We do this by > # testing for an empty sending host field. > accept > hosts = : > ...That is taken verbatim from upstream''s example configuration. I suspect that they want to ensure that locally generated undeliverable mail (which might originate from a program which might not be prepared to queue mail or process error message) generates a bounce to catch the operator''s attention. For the same reason, our configuration accepts mail from authenticated senders before doing recipient verification, as many "user-friendly" MUAs do not show the SMTP error message to the user. I am more astonisched that we actually do sender verification even for authenticated senders; I''d have expected these to be accepted and bounced as well.> > Instead of doing first > > | -*- > acl_check_rcpt: > > require > verify = recipient > ... > | -*-I do not think that this makes sense for the default configuration. It might make sense for some local configurations, but the local admin is invited to adapt the configuration to her needs.> Second. Is there easy way of getting rid of garbage like this? > > | -*- garbage -*- > > 2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so > on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>" H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85. > 108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free gift box with every > VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR: white"> unl </ > span>ch ordered. Y"Not that I am aware of. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190
> For the same reason, our configuration accepts mail from authenticated > senders before doing recipient verification, as many "user-friendly" > MUAs do not show the SMTP error message to the user. > > I am more astonisched that we actually do sender verification even for > authenticated senders; I''d have expected these to be accepted and > bounced as well.Isn''t it struggling with symptoms, not the cause?>> >> Instead of doing first >> >> | -*- >> acl_check_rcpt: >> >> require >> verify = recipient >> ... >> | -*- > > I do not think that this makes sense for the default configuration. It > might make sense for some local configurations, but the local admin is > invited to adapt the configuration to her needs.Yea. She have full power over her servers :)>> Second. Is there easy way of getting rid of garbage like this? >> >> | -*- garbage -*- >> >> 2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so >> on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>" H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85. >> 108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free gift box with every >> VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR: white"> unl </ >> span>ch ordered. Y" > > Not that I am aware of.Do you think, that patches are welcome? ____
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:06:19PM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote:> > For the same reason, our configuration accepts mail from authenticated > > senders before doing recipient verification, as many "user-friendly" > > MUAs do not show the SMTP error message to the user. > > > > I am more astonisched that we actually do sender verification even for > > authenticated senders; I''d have expected these to be accepted and > > bounced as well. > > Isn''t it struggling with symptoms, not the cause?How do you fix the cause of misconfigured local services? Anyway, I do not intend to move away from upstream''s standard configuration in this regard for the package.> >> 2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so > >> on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>" H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85. > >> 108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free gift box with every > >> VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR: white"> unl </ > >> span>ch ordered. Y" > > > > Not that I am aware of. > > Do you think, that patches are welcome?What do you intend do patch? I think that it makes sense to log whatever caused the connection to be dropped. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190
>> >> 2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so >> >> on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>" H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85. >> >> 108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free gift box with every >> >> VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR: white"> unl </ >> >> span>ch ordered. Y" >> > >> > Not that I am aware of. >> >> Do you think, that patches are welcome? > > What do you intend do patch? I think that it makes sense to log > whatever caused the connection to be dropped.SMTP commands have limited, small length. But what i see in the logs is kind of referrer spam of HTTP server''s logs. And AFAIK Apache have a disable option for that. ____
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 01:26:09PM +0000, Oleg Verych wrote:> >> >> 2007-07-06 17:16:26 SMTP protocol synchronization error (next input sent too so > >> >> on: pipelining was advertised): rejected "</p>" H=(mx5.biz.mail.yahoo.com) [85. > >> >> 108.174.88] next input=" <p align=3D"left">We offer a free gift box with every > >> >> VIP wat<span style=\r\n=3D"FONT-SIZE: 2px; FLOAT: right; COLOR: white"> unl </ > >> >> span>ch ordered. Y" > >> > > >> > Not that I am aware of. > >> > >> Do you think, that patches are welcome? > > > > What do you intend do patch? I think that it makes sense to log > > whatever caused the connection to be dropped. > > SMTP commands have limited, small length. But what i see in the logs > is kind of referrer spam of HTTP server''s logs. And AFAIK Apache have > a disable option for that.I do not intend to patch this in Debian. I would like to suggest that you submit a patch upstream which will then be included in Debian with the appropriate upstream release. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190
Hi everybody, I''m using Exim4 on Debian Sarge. Since today my mailserver began to block all e-mails in and out, claiming it was relayed from blocked IP''s in my dnslists-variable (located in conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt) Typical messages returned were like; When sending e-mail out: <my domain #5.5.0 smtp;550-Message rejected because (my domain) [000.000.000.000] is blacklisted at> (at the zeros my originating IP# was filled in.) When sending e-mail in from other domains such as hotmail.com: Reporting-MTA: dns;bay0-omc2-s9.bay0.hotmail.com Received-From-MTA: dns;BAY106-W13 Arrival-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:44:32 -0700 Final-Recipient: rfc822;my-local at email.address Action: failed Status: 5.5.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550-Message rejected because (bay0-omc2-s9.bay0.hotmail.com) [65.54.246.145] is 550 blacklisted at list.dsbl.org see In my exim4 logfiles, I indeed witnessed all e-mails being blocked for being blacklisted at one of the hosts in my dnslists-variable. Only after I replaced this value in the above mentioned file in; dnslists = (no servers listed at all) mails were going in and out again (I know have an highly increased spamcount ofcourse). Adding back servers one by one only resulted in all e-mails bouncing due to that specific server. When all servers were listed, mails just bounced by all servers randomly. This problem really freaks me out, so I hope it''s something known. Hope to hear from someone. Kind regards, Thijs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:06:53PM +0200, Thijs Koetsier wrote:> I''m using Exim4 on Debian Sarge. > Since today my mailserver began to block all e-mails in and out, claiming it > was relayed from blocked IP''s in my dnslists-variable (located in > conf.d/acl/30_exim4-config_check_rcpt) > > Typical messages returned were like; > > When sending e-mail out: > <my domain #5.5.0 smtp;550-Message rejected because (my domain) > [000.000.000.000] is blacklisted at> > (at the zeros my originating IP# was filled in.)http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/DontObfuscate> When sending e-mail in from other domains such as hotmail.com: > > Reporting-MTA: dns;bay0-omc2-s9.bay0.hotmail.com > Received-From-MTA: dns;BAY106-W13 > Arrival-Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:44:32 -0700 > > Final-Recipient: rfc822;my-local at email.address > Action: failed > Status: 5.5.0 > Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550-Message rejected because > (bay0-omc2-s9.bay0.hotmail.com) [65.54.246.145] is > 550 blacklisted at list.dsbl.org see > > In my exim4 logfiles, I indeed witnessed all e-mails being blocked for being > blacklisted at one of the hosts in my dnslists-variable.At which of the hosts? How was that DNSBL behaving at the time you experienced this? Did you try manual queries, maybe also from a different site (such as http://rbls.org/)?> Adding back servers one by one only resulted in all e-mails bouncing due to > that specific server.Which specific server? You are holding back all information that might be enable people to help you.> When all servers were listed, mails just bounced by all servers randomly.What happened when you listed only that single entry? Oh yes, and, please, do not hijack threads. Open your own. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don''t trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190