Ok so it sounds like doing a 
:allow,BADMIMETYPE="",SENDER_NOCHECK="1",BADLOADERTYPE="M",CHKUSER_RCPTLIMIT="50",CHKUSER_WRONGRCPTLIMIT="10",QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/simscan"
is suggested..
so how exactly do i do that ?
Is the above ":allow,B  ...snip... /simscan"
entered into a conf file somewhere?
or is this a cmd that is just done in any shell with root permission...
seems like it should be added to a conf ... maybe ... but what / where

and Thank You , thank you very much

jim s
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jake Vickers 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 7:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] error 571-'sorry, sender address has invalid 
format (#5.7.1 - chkuser)'


  Jim Shupert, Jr. wrote: 
    Friends,

    I have a blckberry user who has the complaint of 
    5.1.0 - Unknown address error 571-'sorry, sender address has invalid format 
(#5.7.1 - chkuser)'

    I find this in the wiki - ok , that sounds dead on



1.Is it generally agreed that "disabling the check for all incoming mail"
is a good solution? best solution? 2. are there any - risks downsides? 3. ( 
most importantly )if I wish to disabled the check for all incoming mail
:allow,BADMIMETYPE="",SENDER_NOCHECK="1",BADLOADERTYPE="M",CHKUSER_RCPTLIMIT="50",CHKUSER_WRONGRCPTLIMIT="10",QMAILQUEUE="/var/qmail/bin/simscan"
 exactly how do I do that?4. do i have the option of editing my tcp.smtp and 
would I be correct in thing that it is as easy as
N.N.N.N:allow,RELAYCLIENT="",RBLSMTPD="",SENDER_NOCHECK="1"
where N.N.N.N is the blackberry mail server?maybe 4 is my best solution... I so 
far- only have 1 complaint. 
  I wrote that wiki page, and then edited it later as a FYI.  I went through 
all the trouble of turning off the checks for all of Blackberry's MX entries 
and unfortunately Blackberry has a couple "ghost" mail servers that are not 
listed in DNS. I had a screaming client during the process, so I would fix it 
and the next day he would get the above message. I'd find the ghost MX server 
and add it telling him it was fixed, and it happened again the next day with a 
new ghost machine. After a couple of what looked like "foot in mouth" moments 
with my client I threw my hands up and turn off sender checking for the whole 
machine.
  Those symbols are technically allowed by the RFC, and I could not really see 
how they could be used to exploit the system since they're not really 
translating to filenames or anything, so I do not see any reason to deny them.  
I have been allowing them for a couple months now and have had no adverse 
effects from it.
  My 2 cents.

Reply via email to