On 17.7.2011 23:52, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
Do your Mail Transfer Agents use valid or bogus HELO/EHLO names ?
Mine uses proper name, but then again I am one of the few in my country
to offer POP3 on SSL port 465. And I am small local WISP.
Probably you meant smtps
Markus Falb wrote:
On 17.7.2011 23:52, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
Do your Mail Transfer Agents use valid or bogus HELO/EHLO names ?
Mine uses proper name, but then again I am one of the few in my country
to offer POP3 on SSL port 465. And I am small local WISP.
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 04:04 +0100, Always Learning wrote:
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 22:37 -0400, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
RFC2821 says:
-
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:12:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/17/11 9:37 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name
On 7/18/11 5:43 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:12:16PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/17/11 9:37 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:41:09AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/18/11 5:43 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
host name (a domain name that resolves to an A RR) or, if the host
has no name,
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 15:45 +0900, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 04:04 +0100, Always Learning wrote:
It seems spammers have successfully hacked Rupert Murdock's London Times
newspaper and copied hundreds of thousands of email addresses or has a
member of staff sold the email
On Monday, July 18, 2011 09:19 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
SPAM-L is that way == oh wait, it's dead...
Maybe we can keep discussions about blackhat, incompetent networks,
about SMTP, open proxies/relays, honeypots and what have you off this list?
Just limit it to sendmail/postfix/exim
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 15:00 +0100, Always Learning wrote:
In the example I mentioned, it was a specially created single purpose
email SMTP address (no POP etc.) used just once about 5? months ago. It
is easy for me to block it as the mail server (MTA Mail Transfer Agent)
which I have done.
off this list?
Just limit it to sendmail/postfix/exim configuration if you have to
discuss these things but please leave everything else outside in
NANAE/your favourite spitting pot.
You wouldn't be insinuating that [CentOS] SPAM on the list has become
SPAM on the list now, would you?
-Iwao
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 00:27 +0900, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
(1) Spyware : logging every access with Google the USA's
international spying operation.
Mailing lists do not avoid this (if they do, please explain how),
particularly now that Google has people using its own parallel DNS
service (!o!) and
On 7/18/2011 10:27 AM, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
(6) Having to visit a web site and then log-on if one wants to respond.
I keychain the logins (I think most browsers have a function like this
now -- I think even elinks does, and elinks is a great way to browse
forums, btw) and don't worry too much with
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 10:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/18/2011 10:27 AM, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
(6) Having to visit a web site and then log-on if one wants to respond.
I keychain the logins (I think most browsers have a function like this
now -- I think even elinks does, and elinks is a
--On Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:37:53 PM -0400 Stephen Harris
li...@spuddy.org wrote:
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
host name (a domain name that resolves to an A RR) or, if the host
has no name, an address literal as
, open proxies/relays, honeypots and what have you off this list?
Just limit it to sendmail/postfix/exim configuration if you have to
discuss these things but please leave everything else outside in
NANAE/your favourite spitting pot.
You wouldn't be insinuating that [CentOS] SPAM on the list has
On 7/18/2011 11:25 AM, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
So do you typically provide helpful answers to forum questions sooner
after they are posted when you have to forum-hop than you would if they
land in your inbox or later?
Obviously some level of activity must be maintained within a community
to ensure
å¤ç¥ å²©ç· wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 10:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/18/2011 10:27 AM, å¤ç¥ å²©ç· wrote:
snip
So... what is wrong with newsreaders? In my experience the provide all
the benefits of email (speed, uniform interface, etc.) that you listed
as well as all the
On 07/18/2011 01:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/18/2011 11:25 AM, ?? ?? wrote:
So do you typically provide helpful answers to forum questions sooner
after they are posted when you have to forum-hop than you would if they
land in your inbox or later?
Obviously some level of activity must be
On 07/18/2011 02:37 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 07/18/2011 01:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/18/2011 11:25 AM, ?? ?? wrote:
So do you typically provide helpful answers to forum questions sooner
after they are posted when you have to forum-hop than you would if they
land in your inbox or later?
Always Learning wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 20:06 -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
On 7/16/2011 6:50 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If there was an automatic ban on List mail containing HTML parts, it is
likely the latest crap would not be distributed to everyone.
A possible test of the
Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote:
I use it too. Reverse-DNS check is best SPAM repellent there is. Only
mail from properly set mail servers is accepted.
That's fine if your check is that a reverse DNS entry exists,
or that the HELO/ELHO exists in forward DNS or, if your MTA is
smart
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 11:06 -0600, Devin Reade wrote:
That's fine if your check is that a reverse DNS entry exists,
or that the HELO/ELHO exists in forward DNS or, if your MTA is
smart enough, it does a reverse-forward* check, but if
you only check that the HELO/ELHO matches the reverse
Am 17.07.2011 22:30, schrieb Always Learning:
Here a a few examples: http://sys.u226.com/t21/t21p003.php
Just to understand you, could you please explain one of your examples?
The 2nd one in your list:
Organisation:British Telecommunications, EU
HELO / EHLO: smtpe1.intersmtp.com
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 23:15 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
The 2nd one in your list:
Organisation:British Telecommunications, EU
HELO / EHLO: smtpe1.intersmtp.com
HELO IP: 62.239.224.89
MX IP: 62.239.224.234
MX DNS A record: smtp61.intersmtp.com
Here
Am 17.07.2011 23:24, schrieb Always Learning:
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 23:15 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
The 2nd one in your list:
Organisation:British Telecommunications, EU
HELO / EHLO: smtpe1.intersmtp.com
HELO IP: 62.239.224.89
MX IP: 62.239.224.234
MX
On 07/17/2011 11:24 PM, Always Learning wrote:
*almost* correct. In Linux, like Unix and the pre-Microsoft days,
uppercase letters have a different numerical value to lowercase letters.
Uppercase 'COM' is definitely not the same as lowercase 'com'.
Please correct me if I am wrong but afaik
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 23:33 +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
Organisation:British Telecommunications, EU
HELO / EHLO: smtpe1.intersmtp.com
HELO IP: 62.239.224.89
MX IP: 62.239.224.234
MX DNS A record: smtp61.intersmtp.com
BUT the IP address used for the mail
Devin Reade wrote:
Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote:
I use it too. Reverse-DNS check is best SPAM repellent there is. Only
mail from properly set mail servers is accepted.
That's fine if your check is that a reverse DNS entry exists,
or that the HELO/ELHO exists in forward DNS
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 23:36 +0200, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 07/17/2011 11:24 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Uppercase 'COM' is definitely not the same as lowercase 'com'.
Please correct me if I am wrong but afaik upper-/lowercase does not
matter in DNS. Also, I am not aware of e.g. Postfix
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Patrick Lists wrote:
On 07/17/2011 11:24 PM, Always Learning wrote:
*almost* correct. In Linux, like Unix and the pre-Microsoft days,
uppercase letters have a different numerical value to lowercase letters.
Uppercase 'COM' is definitely not the
Always Learning wrote:
Do your Mail Transfer Agents use valid or bogus HELO/EHLO names ?
Mine uses proper name, but then again I am one of the few in my country
to offer POP3 on SSL port 465. And I am small local WISP.
And when I say *few*, I mean I do not actually *know* of any mail server
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 23:52 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Always Learning wrote:
Do your Mail Transfer Agents use valid or bogus HELO/EHLO names ?
Mine uses proper name, but then again I am one of the few in my country
to offer POP3 on SSL port 465. And I am small local WISP.
On 7/17/11 4:48 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If the 'greeting name' (HELO/EHLO) does not resolve to the IP address
used by the sending server, then the mail is not accepted.
That's ummm, kind of random. There's no reason to expect this.
Someone who does not want to receive mail from legitimate
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 21:07 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/17/11 4:48 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Legitimate senders should not use fake, false, misleading credentials.
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
to work for multi-homed and/or
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
host name (a domain name that resolves to an A RR) or, if
On 7/17/11 9:18 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Legitimate senders should not use fake, false, misleading credentials.
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
to work for multi-homed and/or clustered machines.
Which type of 'multi-homing' were you
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 22:37 -0400, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
On 7/17/11 9:37 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:38PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There is no requirement for the greeting name to match any IP, and isn't
likely
RFC2821 says:
- The domain name given in the EHLO command MUST BE either a primary
host name
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 21:57 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Multiple interfaces, multiple IP addresses. Sendmail isn't going to track
which
interface it is sending on and adjust its greeting.
Sendmail ? Golly some of us have advanced to more advance systems like
Exim ;-)
When I complained to
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 22:12 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/17/11 9:37 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
(RFC821 actually wanted the HELO to match the connecting host, but
2821 just says it must be an A record or an address literal).
That's a long way for saying it MUST be the name of that
On 7/17/11 10:26 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Sorry if I seem thick but I am having problems understanding why, with
the use of NAT, the HELO/EHLO and their external IP address can not
match.
I suppose it is not impossible if you force a 1 to 1 correspondence.
Also what influences does
On 7/18/11, Always Learning cen...@u6.u22.net wrote:
Sorry if I seem thick but I am having problems understanding why, with
the use of NAT, the HELO/EHLO and their external IP address can not
match. Also what influences does scaling have on the ability of sending
mail servers (MTAs) to
On 7/17/11 10:22 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Multiple interfaces, multiple IP addresses. Sendmail isn't going to track
which
interface it is sending on and adjust its greeting.
Sendmail ? Golly some of us have advanced to more advance systems like
Exim ;-)
Does it vary it's HELO per
If there was an automatic ban on List mail containing HTML parts, it is
likely the latest crap would not be distributed to everyone.
A possible test of the Content-Type: header for
multipart/mixed;
or
text/html;
might stop the spam.
--
With best regards,
On 7/16/2011 6:50 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If there was an automatic ban on List mail containing HTML parts, it is
likely the latest crap would not be distributed to everyone.
A possible test of the Content-Type: header for
multipart/mixed;
or
text/html;
might
On 07/16/2011 05:06 PM, Mark Weaver wrote:
you mean like the default settings of Mailman list software that the
CentOS list doesn't run on? I have five lists running on one of my
CentOS servers and crap like that doesn't ever make it to the list.
Mark take a careful look at the footers
On 7/16/2011 8:33 PM, KevinO wrote:
On 07/16/2011 05:06 PM, Mark Weaver wrote:
you mean like the default settings of Mailman list software that the
CentOS list doesn't run on? I have five lists running on one of my
CentOS servers and crap like that doesn't ever make it to the list.
Mark
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 08:40:37PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
Oops... my bad. here I set with egg on my face. However they did used to
use a different mailing list package.
They did?
John
--
The things that will destroy America are
On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 20:06 -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:
On 7/16/2011 6:50 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If there was an automatic ban on List mail containing HTML parts, it is
likely the latest crap would not be distributed to everyone.
A possible test of the Content-Type: header for
49 matches
Mail list logo
