Jay D. Dyson writes:
> > No. The output from rlytest is being misinterpreted. There are idiots
> > out there, and the only way to ensure that *they* get corrected is to
> > make sure that *they* get hurt. If you work around their brokenness,
> > they'll never get a clue.
>
> I think the folks at vix.com and abuse.net are *far* from
> "idiots."
Not *them*, the users of rlytest.
> I'm also currently attempting to acquire the source for the
> new-rlytest.cgi script to perform modifications that will demonstrate that
> Qmail doesn't relay. Even so, I think it would be good for Qmail to
> outright reject such relay hacks. I'd rather have a 553 than a load of
> internal bounces in my logfiles.
Why? There's no particular reason why any MTA other than sendmail
should interpret string1%string2 as a request to relay, and there's no
reason why accepting such a string should be cause to consider someone
as having an open relay. "something%somethingelse" is a perfectly
legal email address.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
