Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So it might well be that those SMTP servers, that accept mail regardless of the existence of the recipient mailbox, take load off your server's spam processing, because they eat spammer's resources. I rather use a MTA that implements SMTP time delays to force the spammer to slow down, thank you very much. I even endorse greylisting (with a whitelist) nowadays, but you'll never see me endorsing QMail until it is patched. Concerning the delayed delivery notifications, there's an efficient way to immediately reject those in the SMTP connection, see I rather not force other mail admins to implement measurements to deal with another MTA's stupidity. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
This one time, at band camp, Gerrit Pape said: Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently. That is so stunningly wrong an argument I can't even think of anything to say. Are you sure you should be working with MTA software? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
Hi, On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:05:31AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce problem? no, or maybe: not yet; they gave notice of including that, but nothing happened yet http://marc.info/?l=qmailm=120275739720434w=2 On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscatter spam issue? I tried searching for the fix in the package but unfortunately failed. Not the default install. The package includes a patch though, and builds and provides additional smtpd and qmtpd replacements that reject unknown addresses in the SMTP connection, they're trivial to enable. I personally use mailfront instead of qmail-smtpd. mailfront, already available in Debian/main, has this functionality and can also act perfectly as a replacement. If it doesn't, then IMO, at this day and age, a MTA sending backscatter spam doesn't belong to Debian. I understand that opinion, and almost share it, after all I've configured my servers that way too. I'd prefer to have that changed upstream in netqmail, but am not strictly opposed to making that change for Debian explicitly. Why 'almost share it'? Rejecting in the SMTP connection also plays into the hands of spammers. They have some resources available to blast out data of unsolicited mails. Once an SMTP server rejects a recipient before DATA, the SMTP client doesn't need to transmit the data, and can immediately switch to another recipient, using the resources more efficiently. The more SMTP servers reject on RCPT, the more moves the load to other SMTP servers. So it might well be that those SMTP servers, that accept mail regardless of the existence of the recipient mailbox, take load off your server's spam processing, because they eat spammer's resources. Concerning the delayed delivery notifications, there's an efficient way to immediately reject those in the SMTP connection, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-isp/2004/09/msg00080.html Finally, just as not supporting VRFY, not rejecting in the SMTP conversation makes it harder for the spammers to sort out bad recipient addresses, and so to use their resources even more efficiently. That not necessarily needs to be true; it's theory, but in my opinion it's worth thinking about. Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well-known (some of the for 10+ years!) bugs have been fixed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. The Debian packaging included surprisingly few patches, and the fixes I tested still applies to the Debian package. e.g: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc2821.diff patching file qmail-remote.c [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc1652.diff patching file ./qmail-smtpd.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 229 with fuzz 1. To avoid having packages starting their Debian life with a long list of serious and grave bugs, may I suggest that you take a look at http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html [1] and either include the patches or use the suggested workarounds? Sure, the two patches you mention might be considered for Debian. However, I wonder how two issues can be called a 'long list', and how these can be judged as severity grave or serious. Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of bugs. Do you know how many people add accept_8bitmime to the default exim configuration, and for what reason? Do you know why any highest priority MX with the closest distance to the mail store should issue temporary errors on incoming connections permanently, and whether this is okay with the standards? I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/12/msg00207.html Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post Does the package in NEW fix the well known backscatter spam issue? I tried searching for the fix in the package but unfortunately failed. If it doesn't, then IMO, at this day and age, a MTA sending backscatter spam doesn't belong to Debian. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
* Gerrit Pape: Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of bugs. Out of curiosity, does netqmail fix at least the delayed bounce problem? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
Gerrit Pape [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters. I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well-known (some of the for 10+ years!) bugs have been fixed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so. The Debian packaging included surprisingly few patches, and the fixes I tested still applies to the Debian package. e.g: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc2821.diff patching file qmail-remote.c [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc1652.diff patching file ./qmail-smtpd.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 229 with fuzz 1. To avoid having packages starting their Debian life with a long list of serious and grave bugs, may I suggest that you take a look at http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html [1] and either include the patches or use the suggested workarounds? Bjørn [1] This page refers to http://home.pages.de/~mandree/qmail-bugs.html as its canonical location but I'm currently unable to open the latter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
