(1) are addresses ok?
(2) is content ok?
i had this same initial concern, but upon reflection (and integration with a policy engine) i realized that the current implementation is not only more efficient in terms of processing, but actually a more secure solution as it doesn't reveal anything about the internal decision making process.
one of my compatriots argues (correctly) that this method 'wastes' internal resources by accepting information that will ultimately end up in /dev/nul, but the trade off is worth it in my mind.
b
alan.gerhard wrote:
Noel - It might be worth mentioning again that James appears to be an open rely server as it accepts everything and then validates ....I believe that the SMTP should refuse connection by attempts outside the valid networks - by James accepting a connection, spammer bots will initially identify a James server as a possible gatweay and then flood it with it's first wave. Some of the Open Relay checkers will initially flag a James server as an open relay since thjey can connect ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
