[xmail] non-RFC compliant Received headers

2008-04-22 Thread Oliver Stöneberg
XMail 1.24 writes Received headers, that are looking like this: Received: from [9.145.228.148] ([192.168.56.85]:3022) by example.com ([192.168.56.102]:25) with [XMail 1.24 ESMTP Server] id 825E7D24-FB9C-46E1-8D27-D3988F776D8F for [EMAIL PROTECTED] from [EMAIL PROTECTED];

[xmail] multiple smtprelay servers for custdomains and 5xx errors

2008-04-22 Thread Oliver Stöneberg
Recently a issue with 5xx errors and multiple servers in the smtprelay option for a custdomain arose with XMail 1.24. When the first entry returns a 5xx error, XMail still tries to send it to the other servers. In case of a 4xx error or a connection issue, that would make sense. But not for a

[xmail] Re: Lockdown xMail

2008-04-22 Thread CLEMENT Francis
First at all xmail doc for smtp.ipprop.tab syntax says : Address selection mask are formed by an IP address (network) plus the number of valid bits inside the network mask So change this 'smtp.ipprop.tab' line : 96.227.65.4 WhiteList=1 with this this one : 96.227.65.4/32WhiteList=1

[xmail] Re: non-RFC compliant Received headers

2008-04-22 Thread CLEMENT Francis
You are right, and I can add that the 'with' value is not rfc compliant ( it must content a 'iana' defined protocol, here SMTP, nothing else, but many smtp software add here the software name and version) But consider this rfc 2821 text about 'gateways' : --- 3.8.2 Received Lines in

[xmail] Re: multiple smtprelay servers for custdomains and 5xx er rors

2008-04-22 Thread CLEMENT Francis
Seems there was some post about this. The BIG figure is when the final domain have multiple mx servers. Suppose the final domain have two mx and one is misconfigured and return a 5xx. So if xmail tries first the 'bad' server, what to do next ? On a atomic try/retry cycle, you have two choices

[xmail] Re: Lockdown xMail

2008-04-22 Thread Hal Dell
Dear Clement Francis / Davide - First at all xmail doc for smtp.ipprop.tab syntax says : Address selection mask are formed by an IP address (network) plus the number of valid bits inside the network mask [...snip...] 96.227.65.4/32 WhiteList=1 Yes, I was wondering if the parser