Carlos E. R. wrote: >> Still, I suggest you use the action DISCARD instead of REJECT. If the next >> mail you want to reject with such a header_check is NOT the empty sender >> address <>, you WILL become a backscatter source with REJECT. > > You are right. Well, in any case, my backscatter would have > "nimrodel.valinor" as the source, so it serves them right if they do > accept it! ;-P
Grin! What would I give, if I could just implement strict RFC compliance checks on our company server, for example "reject_unknown_helo_hostname". I see a lot of regular servers announcing themselves as "mail.intranet" or "exchange.local" and the like. > Probably my subconscious mind chooses "reject" as a way of punishing > them... Ok, ok, I'll start reviewing my config O:-) I feel for you, man! I always get this warm fuzzy feeling when I see the reject rate on my server spike. (^-^) Recently I had a few thousand rejects when a spammer decided to use "localhost" as HELO. Sometimes I really wonder if the evolution theory is valid. -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
